title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc:

subject:

The Gender of the Gift : Problems With Women and Problems With Society in Melanesia Studies in Melanesian Anthropology ; 6 Strathern, Marilyn !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press $%&'()''%)')) $%&'(&(*'&)$) +nglish Melanesians,,Social life and customs, Women,,Melanesia,, Social conditions, -eminism, Se. role,,Melanesia *$&& G/66& S6$ *$&&eb 0'( 12'$$0 Melanesians,,Social life and customs, Women,,Melanesia,, Social conditions, -eminism, Se. role,,Melanesia co"er Page i

The Gender of the Gift page3i Page ii Studies 4n Melanesian Anthropology General Editors 5onald - Tu6in Gilbert 7 7erdt 8ena 9ederman * Michael :oung, Magicians of Manumanua: Living Myth in Kalauna ) Gilbert 7 7erdt, ed , Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia 0 ;ruce M <nauft, Good Company and iolence: !orcery and !ocial "ction in a Lo#land $e# Guinea !ociety

1 <enneth + 8ead, Return to the High alley: Coming %ull Circle ( =ames - Weiner, &he Heart of the 'earl !hell: &he Mythological (imension of %oi !ociety 6 Marilyn Strathern, &he Gender of the Gift: 'ro)lems #ith *omen and 'ro)lems #ith !ociety in Melanesia % =ames G #arrier and Achsah 7 #arrier, *age+ &rade+ and Exchange in Melanesia: " Manus !ociety in the Modern !tate & #hristopher 7ealey, Maring Hunters and &raders: 'roduction and Exchange in the 'apua $e# Guinea Highlands $ A 9 +pstein, ,n the Midst of Life: "ffect and ,deation in the *orld of the &olai *' =ames G #arrier, ed , History and &radition in Melanesian "nthropology ** <aren = ;rison, -ust &al.: Gossip+ Meetings+ and 'o#er in a 'apua $e# Guinea illage *) Terence + 7ays, ed , Ethnographic 'resents: 'ioneering "nthropologists in the 'apua $e# Guinea Highlands *0 Michele Stephen, "/aisa/s Gifts: " !tudy of Magic and the !elf page3ii Page iii

The Gender of the Gift Problems >ith Women and Problems >ith Society in Melanesia Marilyn Strathern !/4?+8S4T: @- #A94-@8/4A P8+SS ;erAeley B 9os Angeles B 9ondon page3iii Page i" !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press ;erAeley and 9os Angeles, #alifornia !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press, 9td 9ondon, +ngland #opyright C *$&& by The 8egents of the !ni"ersity of #alifornia -irst PaperbacA Printing *$$' 9ibrary of #ongress #ataloging in Publication 5ata Strathern, Marilyn The gender of the gift 2 Marilyn Strathern p cm DStudies in Melanesian anthropologyE ;ibliography : p 4ncludes inde. 4S;/ '()''%)')) DalA paperE * MelanesiansSocial life and customs ) WomenMelanesia Social conditions 0 -eminism 4 Title 44 Series 5!1$' S%$ *$&& 0'( 1F'$$0 &&*1)6%

Printed in the !nited States of America )01(6%&$ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum reGuirements of American /ational Standard for 4nformation SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed 9ibrary Materials, A/S4 H0$ 1&*$&1 page3i" Page "

%or 01 H1 M1+ H1 &1 and "1 L1 page3" Page "i Woman is a social being, created >ithin and by a specific society As societies differ, so too do >omen 4t is easy to forget this and to see F>omanF as a timeless, changeless category Woman in ancient Greece is seen to be the same as >oman today; only their circumstances differ -rom this "ie> emerges an ahistorical sense of the meaning of being a >oman, and of the simple continuity of our oppression An anti,>oman Guotation from Ienophon sits comfortably beside one from St Augustine, and both chime in >ith those of 8ousseau, 7egel and /orman Mailer Woman, man and misogyny become constants, despite the >orld around them turning upside do>n 4 >ould argue instead that >omen and men and the nature of misogyny and oppression are all Gualitati"ely different in different times and places The sense of similarity, of easily dra>n parallels, is illusory Women themsel"es change 4t is precisely the differences in circumstances that is crucial to the meaning and sense of becoming a >oman We must therefore understand the particularity of our o>n circumstances in order to understand oursel"es =ill =ulius Matthe>s Good and Mad *omen *$&1 The unit of in"estigation is the social life of some particular region of the earth during a certain period of time A 8 8adcliffe,;ro>n !tructure and %unction in 'rimitive !ociety *$() The future of Western society lies in its ability to create social forms that >ill maAe e.plicit distinctions bet>een classes and segments of society, so that these distinctions do not come of themsel"es as implicit racism, discrimination, corruption, crises, riots, necessary FcheatingF and FfinanglingF and so on The future of anthropology lies in its ability to e.orcise FdifferenceF and maAe it conscious and e.plicit 8oy Wagner &he ,nvention of Culture *$%( page3"i Page "ii

#@/T+/TS Preface AcAno>ledgments i. .iii

4ntroduction * Anthropological Strategies ) A Place in the -eminist 5ebate Part @ne 0 Groups: Se.ual Antagonism in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands 1 5omains: Male and -emale Models ( Po>er: #laims and #ounterclaims 6 WorA: +.ploitation at 4ssue Part T>o % Some 5efinitions & 8elations >hich Separate page3"ii Page "iii $ -orms >hich Propagate *' #ause and +ffect #onclusion ** 5omination *) #omparison /otes ;ibliography Author 4nde. SubJect 4nde. page3"iii Page i. 0'$ 01' 01( 0&( 1'$ 1*0 ))( )6& *%* *$* 10 66 $& *00 0 ))

P8+-A#+ 4t >as an early hope that feminist,inspired scholarship >ithin anthropology >ould change not Just >ays of >riting about >omen or about >omen and men but >ould change >ays of >riting about culture and society That hope has been reali6ed to some e.tent through e.perimentation >ith narrati"e modes The present e.ercise is an e.periment that e.ploits orthodo. anthropological analysis as itself a literary form of sorts 4ts style is argumentati"e Although part of the impetus for this e.ercise comes from outside anthropology, there is also an internal necessity to it: 4 am concerned >ith an area of the >orld, the islands of Melanesia, >here genderK symbolism plays a maJor part in peopleFs conceptuali6ations of social life -e> ethnographers can a"oid the issues of gender relations -e> to date ha"e thought it necessary to de"elop anything one might call a theory of gender ;y FgenderF 4 mean those categori6ations of persons, artifacts, e"ents, seGuences, and so on >hich dra> upon se.ual imageryupon the >ays in >hich the distincti"eness of male and female characteristics

maAe concrete peopleFs ideas about the nature of social relationships TaAen simply to be FaboutF men and >omen, such categori6ations ha"e K 4n this >orA, FgenderF as an unGualified noun refers to a type of category differentiation 4 do not mean gender identity unless 4 say so Whether or not the se.ing of a personFs body or psyche is regarded as innate, the apprehension of difference bet>een Fthe se.esF in"ariably taAes a categorical form, and it is this to >hich gender refers The forms FmaleF and FfemaleF indicate gender constructs in this account page3i. Page . often appeared tautologous 4ndeed, their in"enti"e possibilities cannot be appreciated until attention is paid to the >ay in >hich relationships are construed through them !nderstanding ho> Melanesians present gender relations to themsel"es is not to be separated from understanding ho> they so present sociality To taAe gender as a theoretically distinct subJect, then, >ill reGuire one to address the principles upon >hich such categori6ations are based and to asA about their generality across the societies of this region /o such attempt could ignore the origin of this interest in issues raised by Western feminist scholarship Part * of this booA tacAs bacA and forth bet>een certain anthropological and certain feminist,deri"ed Guestions pertinent to the >riting of Melanesian ethnographies o"er the last t>o decades My initial intention >as to document the influence that feminist theory might ha"e had on the anthropology of the region: >hether there >ere ne> facts and themes originating from the ne> feminism that emerged in Western +urope and /orth America o"er the later *$6's and early *$%'s, also a period of e.panding anthropological field>orA in Melanesia 4n the end, 4 did not accomplish that historical accounting 4t seems that it is easier to taAe on board ne> ideas as a matter for discussion and debate than to adopt them as precepts for ethnographic practice +arly e.ceptions include the >orA of Annette Weiner and 5aryl -eil @n the >hole, ho>e"er, the flood of general discussion on the Fanthropology of >omenF or on Fgender relationsF has not been matched by feminist, informed descriptions of entire societies +"en >here there ha"e been apparent shifts, the connections may be left to inference -e> Melanesian ethnographers refer directly to their >orA as feminist; some admit it as a conte.t for their anthropology, >hile others on >hom 4 dra> >ould esche> the label 4t may >ell be that my intention >as premature, for in the mid,*$&'s >e are in the midst of a burgeoning Fsecond >a"eF of Melanesian studies, including recently published monographs by ;renda #lay, 5eborah Ge>ert6, 9isette =osephides, Miriam <ahn, 8ena 9ederman, /ancy Munn, and 9orraine Se.ton, to mention only >omen anthropologists and only some of them 7o>e"er, e"en the limited range of earlier material that 4 did scrutini6e raised Gueries as eGually against feminist as against anthropological assumptions :et these >ere not to be conflated The one mode >as not simply to be subsumed under the other, hence the alternations Part ) is a synthesis of sorts 4t describes certain techniGues or page3. Page .i strategies in the conceptuali6ation of social relations that appear common to a range of Melanesian cultures, both those of a FpatrilinealF and of a FmatrilinealF cast The synthesis is necessarily a product of the alternations tra"ersed in Part * And these techniGues necessarily embody and are thus our e"idence for the principles to >hich 4 referred :et, really, one should dismantle this conflation in turn and grasp the cultures at staAe by a further alternation: bet>een elucidating the manner in >hich these techniGues seem to >orA for the actors in"ol"ed and the only >ay in >hich the anthropologist can maAe them >orA for him or herby laying them out as though they embodied principles of organi6ation These are in fact Guite different Ainds of productions Anthropological analysis achie"es its pro.imity to and replication of its subJectsF comprehensions through a form of comprehension, of Ano>ledge, that belongs distincti"ely to itself The opening t>o chapters, >hich introduce issues in the relationship bet>een anthropological and feminist approaches, can also be read as an ethnography of Western Ano>ledge practices 4f the body of the booA is an e.position of >hat 4 thinA of instead as Melanesian Ano>ledge practices, the conclusions reconsider strictly feminist Dmale dominationE and anthropological Dcross,cultural comparisonE Guestions in its light

The concept of Fthe giftF has long been one of anthropologyFs entry points into the study of Melanesian societies and cultures 4ndeed, it pro"ides a springboard for general theori6ing: the reciprocities and debts created by the e.change of gifts are seen to comprise a form of sociality and a mode of societal integration 4n Melanesia, gift e.changes regularly accompany the celebration of life,cycle e"ents and are, most notably, instruments of political competition @ften gifts subsume persons themsel"es, especially under patrilineal regimes >here >omen mo"e in marriage from one set of men to another, although this is not the only conte.t in >hich obJects, as they pass from donor to recipient, appear to be categori6ed as male or female 7o>e"er, one cannot read such gender ascriptions off in ad"ance, not e"en >hen >omen appear to be the "ery items >hich are gifted 4t does not follo> that F>omenF only carry >ith them a FfemaleF identity The basis for classification does not inhere in the obJects themsel"es but in ho> they are transacted and to >hat ends The action is the gendered acti"ity This is no Guibble 4n the con"entional anthropological "ie>, gift e.change is taAen as a self,e"ident act, a transaction that happens to deploy items of "arious Ainds, including male or female ones, as assets or page3.i Page .ii resources at the transactorFs disposal The beha"ior is assumed to be categorically neutral >ith po>er residing in the control of the e"ent and of the assets, as in the manner in >hich FmenF control F>omenF ;ut in Melanesian culture, such beha"ior is not construed as gender neutral: it itself is gendered, and menFs and >omenFs ability to transact >ith this or that item stems from the po>er this gendering gi"es some persons at the e.pense of others, as does the necessity and burden of carrying through transactions To asA about the gender of the gift, then, is to asA about the situation of gift e.change in relation to the form that domination taAes in these societies 4t is also to asA about the FgenderF of analytical concepts, the >orlds that particular assumptions sustain +.ploring the manner in >hich gender imagery structures concepts and relations is among feminismFs proJects; ho>e"er, my assessment of e.plicit feminist >riting remains focused on one or t>o of the debates that ha"e defined the self,described Ffeminist anthropologyF of the last decade Many of the concepts and assumptions that inform these debates prompt self,inGuiry :et the feminist mo"ement has roots so clearly in Western society that it is also imperati"e to conte.tuali6e its o>n presuppositions The moti"e is a proper one, since feminist thought itself seeAs to dislodge assumptions and preJudgments 4 taAe this endea"or seriously, through Guestioning the premises of its assault on anthropological ones At the same time, 4 ha"e >anted to document >ays in >hich anthropology might respond to feminist debate, in anthropologyFs conte.t This reGuires reference bacA to the social and cultural data D"i6 ethnographyE through >hich anthropology creates itself @nly thus can one taAe anthropology as seriously as feminism and not simply picA at >hat tidbits taAe oneFs polemical or theoretical fancy 4t is also important that there remain more data than my particular interests address, in order to preser"e a sense of a partial Job +thnographies are the analytical constructions of scholars; the peoples they study are not 4t is part of the anthropological e.ercise to acAno>ledge ho> much larger is their creati"ity than any particular analysis can encompass ;y the same toAen, although it is necessary to present arguments through an historically and geographically specific range of material, and the cultures and societies of Melanesia pro"ide this range, this booA is not only about Melanesia 4t is also about the Ainds of claims to comprehension that anthropology can and cannot maAe page3.ii Page .iii

A#</@W9+5GM+/TS The cause and origin of this booA ha"e separate sources 4ts cause >as an in"itation from the 5epartment of Anthropology in the !ni"ersity of #alifornia at ;erAeley to gi"e a series of general lectures in *$&1 4ts origin belongs to The Australian /ational !ni"ersity in #anberra, >here 4 spent *$&0*$&1 as a member of a 8esearch Group in the 5epartment of Anthropology The Group addressed itself to FFGender 8elations in the South>estern Pacific: 4deology, Politics, and Production,L and 4 borro>ed this title for my lectures

4 o>e special thanAs to the then chair of the 5epartment at ;erAeley, /elson Graburn, and to +li6abeth #olson, >hose last teaching year it >as, for maAing me so >elcome 4 also o>e much to the interest of a class of students >ho made sure 4 did not get a>ay >ith too many liberties=eanne ;ergman, /icole #onstable, 8oger 9ancaster, /ancy 9ut6, <amala ?is>es>aran Gayle 8ubin and Marilyn Gelber both made substantial comments Gail <ligman, Amal 8assam, and <irim /arayan >ill Ano> >hy 4 might >ish to remember them here, as >ill Paul 8abino> The #alifornian stimulus has since been sustained through the e.tensi"e and critical appraisal that this >orA recei"ed from the editors of the Melanesian Studies series 4 ha"e been fortunate in continuing to be pro"oAed by student interest, including those students of the 5epartment of Social Anthropology in Manchester on >hom 4 ha6arded my ideas in *$&6*$&% #olleagues in the 5epartment ha"e all, intellectu, page3.iii Page .i" ally and other>ise, assisted in this enterprise, and 4 do thanA them 7o>e"er, it >as during the inter"ening year at Trinity #ollege in #ambridge that the first draft >as >ritten, and the interlude >as in"aluable The A / ! 8esearch Group >as con"ened by 8oger <eesing, Marie 8eay, and Michael :oung +lse>here 4 ha"e Joined >ith members of the group in publication: here 4 acAno>ledge my debt to their support 4 am grateful to =ames Weiner for his apt criticism of an earlier draft, to 5a"id Schneider and 9isette =osephides for their comments, and to Margaret =olly for furnishing me >ith both material and ideas #hristina Toren >ill recogni6e, 4 hope, the effect of her ad"ice With unstinting generosity the 7ead and staff of the 5epartment of Anthropology at A / ! assisted >ith the preparation of this manuscript some time after 4 had left their company: my thanAs here are a "ery inadeGuate return, as they are to the sAill and help of =ean Ashton in Manchester The ;erAeley lectures >ere an occasion for bringing together topics treated in other conte.ts They postdate but also dra> upon se"eral years of cooperation >ith Andre> Strathern 4 am, in addition, grateful to the editors and publishers of the follo>ing articles for allo>ing me to maAe use of them here: LSubJect or obJectM Women and the circulation of "aluables in 7ighlands /e> Guinea L 4n 8 7irschon, ed *omen and 'roperty+ *omen as 'roperty 9ondon: #room 7elm *$&1 L5omesticity and the denigration of >omen L 4n 5 @F;rien and S Tiffany, eds Rethin.ing *omen/s Roles: 'erspectives from the 'acific ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press *$&1 L<no>ing po>er and being eGui"ocal L 4n 8 -ardon, ed 'o#er and Kno#ledge: "nthropological and !ociological "pproaches +dinburgh: Scottish Academic Press *$&( A special obligation must be acAno>ledged to Gilbert 7erdt The booA could not ha"e been >ritten >ithout the sharpness >ith >hich he brings into focus certain analytical approaches to the study of ritual Although it taAes the form of complementary rather than symmetrical schismogenesis, my response is to be read as positi"e rather than negati"e There is a different Aind of debt to those >hose >orA has been absorbed to become part of oneFs o>n 4n my mind, they stand as figures other than myself, but it >ould be false to thanA them separately from the use 4 maAe of their ideas hereand as ridiculous as e.pressing page3.i" Page ." gratitude for being born 4 must o>n to ha"ing cheated in one respect, ho>e"er My account represents the bibliographical limits on this e.ercise as it >as in *$&(, though 4 ha"e, of course, been influenced by >orA >hich has appeared since Without doubt, 8oy WagnerFs most recent >ritings ha"e been by far the most significant 4 ha"e not thanAed at all my other sources, >hich are the accounts of themsel"es that so many hospitalbe Melanesians ha"e gi"en to intruding anthropologists of one persuasion or another and, for myself, people from 7agen and Pangia 4t is not they >ho need this booA or >ho >ould need to >rite one liAe it ;ut if any should care to read it, 4 hope the present tense and the use of F>eF to mean F>e WesternersF >ill not pro"e too much of an irritant The problem >ith tense is that neither past nor present >ill really dothe latter suggesting timeless issues, fro6en in the ethnographic record, the former that they belong to a "anished and no longer rele"ant era /either, of course, con"eys the truth since ideas are not so mobile nor so immobile as any such

attempt to locate them suggests 4t is a pity that one is tied to the grammatical choice And it is a pity that +nglish does not ha"e a dual, for then one could also use F>eF in the sense of F>e t>oF, an inclusion that >ould not obliterate separateness 4ndeed, the >orA can be read both as an apology and an apologia for a language and a culture that does not maAe that particular possibility of central concern to the >ay it imagines itself T84/4T: #@99+G+, #AM;845G+, *$&( !/4?+8S4T: @- MA/#7+ST+8, *$&% MA849:/ ST8AT7+8 page3." Page *

4/T8@5!#T4@/ page3* Page 0

* Anthropological Strategies 4t might sound absurd for a social anthropologist to suggest he or she could imagine people ha"ing no society :et the argument of this booA is that ho>e"er useful the concept of society may be to analysis, >e are not going to Justify its use by appealing to indigenous counterparts 4ndeed, anthropologists should be the last to contemplate such a Justification Scholars trained in the Western tradition cannot really e.pect to find others sol"ing the metaphysical problems of Western thought +Gually absurd, if one thinAs about it, to imagine that those not of this tradition >ill someho> focus their philosophical energies onto issues such as Fthe relationshipF bet>een it and the indi"idual This has, nonetheless, been among the assumptions to ha"e dogged anthropological approaches to the peoples and cultures of Melanesia @ne may thinA of the Aind of attention that has been paid to their rich ceremonial and ritual life, and in some areas as rich a political life @bser"ers ha"e taAen initiation rites, for e.ample, as essentially a Fsociali6ationF process that transforms the products of nature into culturally molded creations And this process is understood from the actorFs point of "ie>: in the case of male initiation, it has been argued that men complete culturally Dthe gro>th of boys and their acGuisition of adult rolesE >hat >omen begin, and may e"en accomplish for themsel"es, naturally +Gually, it has been argued that political acti"ity is prompted by a need for cohesion, resulting in social structures of areal integration that o"ercome the refractory centrifugal inclinations of indi, page30 Page 1 "iduals Thus social control, the integration of groups, and the promotion of sociability itself ha"e all been read into peopleFs engagement in ceremonial e.change -ar from thro>ing out such frame>orAs for understanding, ho>e"er, 4 argue instead that >e should acAno>ledge the interests from >hich they come They endorse a "ie> of society that is bound up >ith the "ery impetus of anthropological study ;ut the impetus itself deri"es from Western >ays of creating the >orld We cannot e.pect to find Justification for that in the >orlds that e"eryone creates -or many purposes of study, this reflection may not be significant ;ut it must be highly significant for the >ay >e approach peopleFs creations @ne of the ethnographic interests of this booA >ill be ritual of a Aind often regarded as Guintessentially constituted through FsymbolicF beha"ior 4n the process, 4 propose that political acti"ity be apprehended in similar terms 4t becomes important that >e approach all such action through an appreciation of the culture of Western social science and its endorsement of certain interests in the description of social life That affords a "antage from >hich it >ill be possible to imagine the Ainds of interests that may be at staAe as far as Melanesians are concerned There is, moreo"er, a particular significance in Aeeping these interests separate -or much symbolic acti"ity in this region deploys gender

imagery Since the same is true of Western metaphysics, there is a double danger of maAing cultural blunders in the interpretation of male,female relations The danger stems not Just from the particular "alues that Western gender imagery puts upon this or that acti"ity but from underlying assumptions about the nature of society, and ho> that nature is made an obJect of Ano>ledge @nly by upturning those assumptions, through deliberate choice, can F>eF glimpse >hat FotherF assumptions might looA liAe The conseGuent >e2they a.is along >hich this booA is >ritten is a deliberate attempt to achie"e such a glimpse through an internal dialogue >ithin the confines of its o>n language There is nothing condescending in my intentions The #omparati"e Method /o doubt it is an e.aggeration to say that the comparati"e method has failed in Melanesia, though there is a special poignancy about the suggestion, for the region as a >hole, and especially the 7ighlands of Papua /e> Guinea, has long been regarded as an e.perimental par, page31 Page ( adise The close Ju.taposition of numerous di"erse societies, it >as thought, could register the changing effect of "ariables as a gradation of adaptations :et fe> >riters ha"e indi"idually attempted systematic comparison beyond the scope of a handful of cases /otable e.ceptions include ;ro>n D*$%&E, >ho addresses the interconnections bet>een social, cultural, and ecological systems in the 7ighlands, and 8ubel and 8osmanFs study D*$%&E of structural models of e.change relations as systemic transformations of one another Gregory D*$&)E subsumes the comparison of economic and Ainship systems under a general specification of a political economy type: each "ariant established as a member of a general class or type also "alidates the utility of the classification All three >orAs deal >ith Papua /e> Guinea The only general attempt to co"er Melanesia remains #ho>ningFs D*$%%E ethnographic o"er"ie> 4sland Melanesia, beyond Papua /e> Guinea, has been treated comparati"ely by Allen D*$&*; *$&1E through a focus on political associations and leadership 7is procedure o"erlaps >ith the more usual strategy of taAing up indi"idual themes for in"estigation, such as Ainship terminologies, male initiation, rituali6ed homose.uality, trade and e.change, and the institution of .ula e.change * #ollected essays ha"e appeared on all these topics D#ooA and @F;rien, eds *$&'; 7erdt, ed *$&)c; *$&1a; Specht and White, eds *$%&; 9each and 9each, eds *$&0E ) 7ere, stretches of ethnography are laid side by side, analytical categories being in part deri"ed from and modified by the e.amination of each case This no> freGuent practice in"ites contributions from separate authors: the collected,essay format allo>s each uniGue case to be presented through the "ision of a uniGue ethnographer 4f there is a failure in all this, it lies in the holism of the original ethnographies These comparati"e e.ercises necessarily dra> upon particular ethnographic monographs, and one reason, 4 thinA, for their paucity is faintheartedness at both the richness and the totality of these primary sources Melanesia is blessed >ith much good >orA, not a lacA of it The situation is almost liAe the one that faced 9essingFs perpetrators of &he !irian Experiments: the ends of inGuiry are already Ano>n and >hat must be found are the reasons for pursuing it 0 We ha"e considerable information about the distincti"eness of these particular cultures and societies but much less idea >hy >e acGuired it -or the holism of the monograph rests on its internal coherence, >hich creates a sense of autonomous Ano>ledge and of its o>n Justification #onseGuently, the page3( Page 6 terms >ithin >hich indi"idual monographs are >ritten >ill not necessarily pro"ide the terms for a comparati"e e.ercise 4t is of interest, in fact, that Melanesianists are currently turning to the possibilities of historical accounts, for history connects e"ents and social forms >hile simultaneously preser"ing their indi"iduality Perhaps historical understanding >ill yield a plot to fi. the relations bet>een phenomena This last phrase comes from ;eerFs D*$&0E dual in"estigation of, on the one hand, 5ar>inFs narration of the connections he percei"ed among life forms and, on the other, the contri"ance of nineteenth,century no"elists to maAe fiction, as deliberately concei"ed narrati"e, a commentary on life and gro>th She >rites of 5ar>inFs desire to specify comple.ity >ithout attempting to simplify it 7e conser"ed, in the profusion and

multi"ocality of his language, the di"ersity and multiple character of phenomena -or, as she puts it, his theory Ldeconstructs any formulation >hich interprets the natural >orld as commensurate >ith manFs understanding of itL D*$&0:*'%E The comple.ity of interrelation is another reason >hy he N5ar>inO needs the metaphoric and needs also at times to emphasise its transposed, metaphorical statusits imprecise innumerate relation and application to the phenomenological order it represents The representation is deliberately limited to that of Fcon"enienceF and does not attempt to present itself as a Just, or full, eGui"alent D*$&0:*'*E 4t is not to history that 4 myself looA, then, but to the >ay that one might hold analysis as a Aind of con"enient or controlled fiction 7o>e"er pro"isional and tentati"e anthropologists are about their findings, the systematic form that analysis other>ise taAes is its o>n enemy: We apply the con"entional orders and regularities of our science to the phenomenal >orld DFnatureFE in order to rationali6e and understand it, and in the process our science becomes more speciali6ed and irrational Simplifying nature, #e taAe on its comple.ity, and this comple.ity, appears as an internal resistance to our intention DWagner *$%(:(1, original emphasisE This is especially true >hen the phenomena are human subJects Analytical language appears to create itself as increasingly more comple. and increasingly remo"ed from the FrealitiesF of the >orlds it attempts to delineate, and not least from the languages in >hich people themsel"es describe them MaAing out ho> di"erse and comple. those >orlds are then seems to be an in"ention of the analysis, the creation of more data to gi"e it more >orA There is thus an inbuilt sense of artificiality to page36 Page % the >hole anthropological e.ercise>hich prompts the apparent solution that >hat one should be doing is aiming to simplify, to restore the clarity of direct comprehension ;ut this returns us to the "ery issue that in his narration of the de"elopment of life forms ;eer suggests 5ar>in >as trying to a"oid The organicist fiction in its nineteenth,century mode >as strong because it operated as Lboth a holistic and an analytical metaphor 4t permitted e.ploration of totalities, and of their elements, >ithout denying either, or gi"ing primacy to eitherL D;eer *$&0:*'&E There are other metaphors today on >hich the anthropologist dra>s: communicational field, ecosystem, social formation, e"en structure, all of >hich construct global conte.ts for the interconnection of e"ents and relations Their danger lies in maAing the system appear to be the subJect under scrutiny rather than the method of scrutiny The phenomena come to appear contained or encompassed by the systemics, and thus themsel"es systemic So >e get entangled in >orld systems and deep structures and >orry about the Fle"elF at >hich they e.ist in the phenomena themsel"es 7ere 4 resort to another mode by >hich to re"eal the comple.ities of social life @ne could sho> ho> they pro"oAe or elicit an analytical form that >ould not pretend to be commensurate to them but that >ould, nonetheless, indicate an analogous degree of comple.ity 4t is to this fictional end that 4 contri"e to gi"e the language of analysis an internal dialogue This is attempted in t>o >ays -irst, 4 sustain a running argument >ith >hat 4 identify as the premises on >hich much >riting on Melanesia Dthough not of course restricted to itE has been based These premises belong to a particular cultural mode of Ano>ledge and e.planation Second, 4 do not imagine, ho>e"er, 4 can e.tract myself from this mode: 4 can only maAe its >orAings "isible To this end, 4 e.ploit its o>n refle.i"e potential Thus my narrati"e >orAs through "arious relations or oppositions; to the >e2they a.is 4 add gift2commodity and anthropological2feminist "ie>points 9et me spell this out The difference bet>een Western and Melanesian D>e2theyE sociality means that one cannot simply e.tend Western feminist insights to the Melanesian case; the difference bet>een anthropological2feminist "ie>points means that the Ano>ledge anthropologists construct of Melanesia is not to be taAen for granted; the difference bet>een gift2commodity is e.panded as a metaphorical base on >hich difference itself may be apprehended and put to use for both anthropological and feminist purposes, yet remains rooted in Western metaphysics While all three are fictions, that page3%

Page & is, the oppositions >orA strictly >ithin the confines of the plot, the cultural reasons for choosing them lie beyond the e.ercise, since the e.ercise itself is no more conte.t,free than its subJect matter #omparati"e procedure, in"estigating "ariables across societies, normally de,conte.tuali6es local constructs in order to >orA >ith conte.t,bound analytic ones The study of symbolic systems presents a different problematic 4f theoretical interest becomes directed to the manner in >hich ideas, images, and "alues are locally conte.tuali6ed, de,conte.tuali6ation >ill not >orA Analytic generalities must be acGuired by other means The tasA is not to imagine one can replace e.ogenous concepts by indigenous counterparts; rather the tasA is to con"ey the comple.ity of the indigenous concepts in reference to the particular conte.t in >hich they are produced 7ence, 4 choose to sho> the conte.tuali6ed nature of indigenous constructs by e.posing the conte.tuali6ed nature of analytical ones This reGuires that the analytical constructs themsel"es be located in the society that produced them -or members of that society, of course, such a laying bare of assumptions >ill entail a laying bare of purpose or interest To taAe the third of the fictions: one possibility of acGuiring distance on anthropological constructs lies in critiGues of the Aind afforded by feminist scholarship Such critiGues incorporate clearly defined social interests, and thereby pro"ide an indirect commentary on the conte.ts of anthropologistsF ideas and on their interests These comprise both the accepted premises of social science inGuiry and the peculiar constraints of scholarly practice itself, including its literary form 4t is as a constant reminder of such Western academic interests that 4 Ju.tapose anthropological concepts >ith ideas and constructs dra>n from a domain of a scholarly discourse >ith >hich it both o"erlaps and is at odds The difference bet>een them is sustained as a fiction if only because 4 separate and obJectify distincti"ely FfeministF and distincti"ely FanthropologicalF "oices A rather limited range of material is presented on both sides ;ut that limitation is partly determined by the attempt to pro"ide some Aind of history of the >ay anthropological and feminist ideas are intert>ined, although there is nothing linear here 4n the crossings,o"er and blocAages bet>een ideas, >e shall encounter repetitions and contradictions of all sorts that emulate not only social life but also our hapha6ard methods for describing it 4n addition, their pro.imity is also sustained as a fiction >ithin the narrati"e form DFanalysisFE of this account A strong feminist tradition, especially on the page3& Page $ #ontinent De g , MarAs and de #ourtri"on *$&(E, >ould see this as sub"erting feminist >ritingFs distincti"e aims Dsee also +lshtain *$&)E 4ndeed, although many a.ioms of feminist scholarship appear to ha"e continuities >ith anthropological ones, its different aims indicate the different purposes that moti"ate inGuiry in the first place 4ts debates are not grounded in anthropological termsmaAing them at once a>A>ard and interesting Thus the significance of feminism is the relati"e autonomy of its premises as far as anthropology is concerned: each pro"ides a critical distance on the other 4deally, one >ould e.ploit the e.tent to >hich each talAs past the other 4deally one >ould do the same for the cross,cultural e.ercise, for it cannot be assumed that FtheirF conte.ts and FoursF >ill be recogni6ably eGui"alent What has to be analy6ed are precisely FtheirF conte.ts for social action This is the subJect matter of those holistic monographs >hich present such self,contained, self,referential >orlds To go beyond them is to proceed in the only >ay possible, to open up FourF o>n self,referencing strategies -or much anthropology, including that of a 8adcliffe,;ro>nian Aind, symbolic systems are intelligible >ithin conte.ts apprehended as a social order or society 8adcliffe,;ro>n himself separated FDsocialE structureFthe roles and positions that maAe up a societyfrom FcultureF, the toAens and signals by >hich its members Ano> about themsel"es Gellner suggests that 8adcliffe,;ro>nFs particular formulation allo>s one FFto asA >hat Aind of structure it is >hich does, and does not, lead to a self,conscious >orship of cultureL D*$&):*&%E @ne may asA the same Guestion of FsocietyF as a conceptuali6ed >hole 4n >hat Ainds of cultural conte.ts do peopleFs self,descriptions include a representation of themsel"es as a societyM :et the Guestion is absurd if one assumes that the obJect of study is Lall that is inscribed in the relationship of familiarity >ith the familiar en"ironment, the unGuestioning apprehension of the social >orld >hich, by definition, does not reflect on itselfL D;ourdieu *$%%:0, emphasis remo"edE 4t >ould be liAe reGuiring characters linAed by an authorFs plot to entertain the idea of that plot What becomes remarAable, then, is its taAen,for,granted status in much anthropological inGuiry into symbolic forms, the ease >ith >hich it is argued that people represent FsocietyF to themsel"es This assumption on behalf of others is, of course, an assumption on behalf of the obser"ers >ho FAno>F they belong to a society 8unciman underlines the parado. After all, it is the characteristic

page3$ Page *' of sociological e.planation Dhe arguesE that Lit reGuires the in"ocation of theoretical terms una"ailable to those to >hose beha"iour they are to be appliedL D*$&0:(0E -or instance, NtOo understand in the tertiary sense the social theory of the >riters of ancient 8ome, it is necessary to be a>are that they themsel"es >ere not a>are of the need to describe the society in >hich they li"ed from any other than >hat >e >ould no> regard as a limited and unrepresentati"e point of "ie> D*$&0:(0, original emphasisE 8unciman in"erts the accepted priorities by >hich social scientists often imply that the end of their endea"ors is e.planation After reportage and e.planation comes description This is >hat he means by understanding in the tertiary sense: con"eying as much as can be con"eyed about an e"ent to gi"e a sense of >hat it >as liAe for those in"ol"ed in it 4ndeed, in his "ie>, the distincti"e problems of social science are precisely those of description, not e.planation Good descriptions in turn ha"e to be grounded in theory, Lthat is, some underlying body of ideas >hich furnishes a reason for both readers of them and ri"al obser"ers of >hat they describe to accept themL D*$&0:))&E This is the reason >hy Lthe concepts in >hich descriptions are grounded are unliAely to be those used by the agents >hose beha"iour is being describedL D*$&0:))&E :et that Ano>ledge of unliAeliness has itself to be contri"ed in order to be con"eyed Tertiary understanding includes its o>n sense of difference from its obJects 4f my aims are the synthetic aims of an adeGuate description, my analysis must deploy deliberate fictions to that end 4 am concerned, then, not to elucidate specific local conte.ts for e"ents and beha"ior, but to elucidate a general conte.t for those conte.ts themsel"es: the distincti"e nature of Melanesian sociality TaAen for granted by Melanesians, this general conte.t can only be of interest to Foursel"esF +"idence must rest >ith the specificities, but the use of them is synthetic This being the case, the comparati"e procedure of laying out the relations bet>een different social systems cannot be an end in itself At the same time, it >ould be ob"iously self,defeating to turn aside from greater systematisation into greater ethnographic detail 8ather, 4 hope that the e.ogenous inter"ention of feminist,inspired scholarship >ill contribute to>ards an understanding of general Melanesian ideas about interaction and relationships >hich >ill be e"idently not reducible to those of Western social science These conte.ts are to be contrasted, not conflated At the least, confronting the premises of page3*' Page ** feminist scholarship should pre"ent us from apprehending those in any a.iomatic >ay All that can be offered initially is a prescription: one cure to the present impasse in the comparati"e anthropology of Melanesia might be to indulge less in our o>n representational strategiesto stop oursel"es thinAing about the >orld in certain >ays Which >ays >ill pro"e profitable >ill depend on our purpose Simply because it itself, as a metaphor for organi6ation, organi6es so much of the >ay anthropologists thinA, the idea of FsocietyF seems a good starting point /egati"ities: 8edescribing Melanesian Society This is no ne> strategy 4n recent years, 4 ha"e made an easy li"ing through setting up negati"ities, sho>ing that this or that set of concepts does not apply to the ethnographic material 4 Ano> best, from 7agen in the Western 7ighlands Pro"ince of Papua /e> Guinea @ne set centers on the unusual status 7agen enJoys "is,P,"is other 7ighlands societies 4t is among the fe> that do not define the se.es through general initiation into cults or through puberty rituals 1 4n reflecting on this absence, 4 >as led into other absences: for instance, that 7ageners do not imagine anything comparable to >hat >e >ould call the relation bet>een nature and culture This is a negati"ity of a different order The former case dra>s on a comparison >ith other Melanesian societies >here initiation ritual e.ists; the latter on a comparison >ith constructs of Western society,( for the circumstances >here the categories seem applicable ha"e to be defined by e.ogenous criteria /o> >hen 9each D*$(%:*01E remarAed of Malino>sAi that he >ould Lneed to maintain that, for the Trobrianders themsel"es, FTrobriand culture as a >holeF does not e.ist 4t is not something that can be reported on by Trobrianders, it is something that has to be disco"ered and constructed by the ethnographer,L his sarcasm >as directed at the e.tent to >hich

Malino>sAi underplayed the ideological significance of >hat the Trobrianders did say and report upon L7e appears to ha"e regarded the ideal construct of the nati"e informant as simply an amusing fiction, >hich could at best ser"e to pro"ide a fe> clues about the significance of obser"ed beha"iourL D*$(%:*0(E ;ut my intentions >ere the oppositenot to fill in the terms that indigenous conceptuali6ations lacAed but to create spaces that the e.ogenous analysis lacAed 4t is not that Melanesians ha"e no images of unities or >hole entities but that page3** Page *) >e obscure them in our analyses The hope here, then, is for something more comprehensi"e than simply demonstrating the inapplicability of this or that particular Western concept 6 4t is important to sho> that inapplicability is not Just a result of poor translation @ur o>n metaphors reflect a deeply rooted metaphysics >ith manifestations that surface in all Ainds of analyses The Guestion is ho> to displace them most effecti"ely 4 approach the artifacts and imagesthe culturesof Melanesian societies through a particular displacement We must stop thinAing that at the heart of these cultures is an antinomy bet>een FsocietyF and Fthe indi"idualF There is nothing ne> about this admonition The history of anthropology is littered >ith cautions to the effect that >e should not reify the concept of society, that the indi"idual is a cultural construct and an embodiment of social relations, and so on They deri"e, by and large, from refle.i"e scrutiny of Western categories of Ano>ledge and from radical positions on their ideological character 4ndeed, one of my intentions in introducing feminist debate is to point to a contemporary critiGue autochthonous to Western culture 7o>e"er, of all the "arious cultural propositions that one could upturn, 4 choose this displacement for three reasons -irst is the tenacity of its persistent appearance as a set of assumptions underlying a >hole range of approaches in anthropological thinAing about Melanesia Second is its usefulness as a focus for organi6ing ho> one might thinA about Melanesian ideas of sociality 4 >ish to dra> out a certain set of ideas about the nature of social life in Melanesia by pitting them against ideas presented as Western orthodo.y My account does not reGuire that the latter are orthodo. among all Western thinAers; the place they hold is as a strategic position internal to the structure of the present account -inally, it is germane that the proposition is framed as a relationship bet>een terms Society and indi"idual are an intriguing pair of terms because they in"ite us to imagine that sociality is a Guestion of collecti"ity, that it is generali6ing because collecti"e life is intrinsically plural in character FSocietyF is seen to be >hat connects indi"iduals to one another, the relationships bet>een them We thus concei"e of society as an ordering and classifying, and in this sense a unifying force that gathers persons >ho present themsel"es as other>ise irreducibly uniGue Persons recei"e the imprint of society or, in turn, may be regarded as changing and altering the character of those connections and relations ;ut as indi, page3*) Page *0 "iduals, they are imagined as conceptually distinct from the relations that bring them together While it >ill be useful to retain the concept of sociality to refer to the creating and maintaining of relationships, for conte.tuali6ing MelanesiansF "ie>s >e shall reGuire a "ocabulary that >ill allo> us to talA about sociality in the singular as >ell as the plural -ar from being regarded as uniGue entities, Melanesian persons are as di"idually % as they are indi"idually concei"ed They contain a generali6ed sociality >ithin 4ndeed, persons are freGuently constructed as the plural and composite site of the relationships that produced them The singular person can be imagined as a social microcosm This premise is particularly significant for the attention gi"en to images of relations contained >ithin the maternal body ;y contrast, the Ainds of collecti"e action that might be identified by an outside obser"er in a male cult performance or group organi6ation, in"ol"ing numbers of persons, often presents an image of unity This image is created out of internal homogeneity, a process of de,plurali6ation, manifested less as the reali6ation of generali6ed and integrati"e principles of organi6ation itself and more as the reali6ation of particular identities called into play through uniGue e"ents and indi"idual accomplishments 4t is not enough, ho>e"er, to substitute one antinomy for another, to conclude that Melanesians symboli6e collecti"e life as a unity, >hile singular persons are composite Such a distinction implies that the relation bet>een them might remain comparable to that bet>een society and indi"idual And the problem >ith that as a relationship is the Western corollary: despite the difference bet>een society and indi"idual, indeed

because of it, the one is regarded as modifying or someho> controlling the other At the heart of the antinomy is a supposed relation of domination Das in our contrasting ideas about society >orAing upon indi"iduals and indi"iduals shaping societyE Whate"er they are concerned >ith, Aey transformations of Melanesian cultures are not concerned >ith this relation While collecti"e e"ents do, indeed, bring together disparate persons, it is not to FmaAeF them into social beings @n the contrary, it may e"en be argued that such de,plurali6ed, collecti"e e"ents ha"e as much an amoral, antisocial character to them as do autonomous persons >ho go their o>n >ay & The relations at issue in"ol"e homologies and analogies rather than hierarchy 4n one sense, the plural and the singular are Fthe sameF They are homologues of one another That is, the bringing together of many page3*0 Page *1 persons is Just liAe the bringing together of one the unity of a number of persons conceptuali6ed as a group or set is achie"ed through eliminating >hat differentiates them, and this is e.actly >hat happens >hen a person is also indi"iduali6ed The causes of internal differentiation are suppressed or discarded 4ndeed, the one holistic condition may elicit the other Thus a group of men or a group of >omen >ill concei"e of their indi"idual members as replicating in singular form DFone manF, Fone >omanFE >hat they ha"e created in collecti"e form DFone menFs houseF, Fone matrilineageFE 4n other >ords, a plurality of indi"iduals as indi"iduals DFmanyFE is eGual to their unity DFoneFE $ The suppression of internal differentiation occurs, ho>e"er, in a plurali6ed conte.t of sorts This is the plurality that taAes the specific form of a differentiated pair or duo FManyF and FoneF may be homologous, but neither is to be eGuated >ith a pair When either a singular person or a collecti"e group comes into relation >ith another, that relation is sustained to the e.tent that each party is irreducibly differentiated from the other +ach is a unity >ith respect to or by analogy >ith the other The tie or alliance bet>een them cannot be subsumed under a further collecti"ity, for the dyad is a unity only by "irtue of its internal di"ision #onseGuently, paired entities cannot be brought together, as >e might be tempted to suggest, under the integrating rubric of Fa >ider societyF Single, composite persons do not reproduce Although it is only in a unitary state that one can, in fact, Join >ith another to form a pair, it is dyadically concei"ed relationships that are the source and outcome of action The products of relationsincluding the persons they createine"itably ha"e dual origins and are thus internally differentiated This internal, dualistic differentiation must in turn be eliminated to produce the unitary indi"idual Social life consists in a constant mo"ement from one state to another, from one type of sociality to another, from a unity Dmanifested collecti"ely or singlyE to that unity split or paired >ith respect to another This alternation is replicated throughout numerous cultural forms, from the manner in >hich crops are regarded as gro>ing in the soil to a dichotomy bet>een political and domestic domains Gender is a principal form through >hich the alternation is conceptuali6ed ;eing FmaleF or being FfemaleF emerges as a holistic unitary state under particular circumstances 4n the one,is,many mode, each male or female form may be regarded as containing >ithin it a suppressed composite identity; it is acti"ated as androgyny transformed 4n the dual mode, a male or page3*1 Page *( female can only encounter its opposite if it has already discarded the reasons for its o>n internal differentiation: thus a di"idual androgyne is rendered an indi"idual in relation to a counterpart indi"idual An internal duality is e.ternali6ed or elicited in the presence of a partner: >hat >as FhalfF a person becomes FoneF of a pair As there are t>o forms of plurality Dthe composite and the dualE, so there are t>o forms of the androgyne or, >e might say, t>o forms of the singular To say that the singular person is imagined as a microcosm is not simply to dra> attention, as obser"ers repeatedly do, to the e.tensi"e physical imagery in Melanesian thought that gi"es so much significance to the body 4t is to percei"e that the body is a social microcosm to the extent that it taAes a singular form This form presents an image of an entity both as a >hole and as holistic, for it contains >ithin it di"erse and plural relations The holistic body is composed in reference to these relationships, >hich are in turn dependent for their "isibility on it The t>o modes to >hich 4 ha"e

referred may thus also be described as stages in body process To be indi"iduated, plural relations are first reconceptuali6ed as dual and then the dually concei"ed entity, able to detach a part of itself, is di"ided The eliciting cause is the presence of a different other The singular person, then, regarded as a deri"ati"e of multiple identities, may be transformed into the di"idual composed of distinct male and female elements ;ut there is a difference bet>een the t>o constructions or modes 4n the first, plurality can be eliminated through difference being encompassed or eclipsed, >hile in the second case, elimination is achie"ed through detachment These operations are basic to the >ay in >hich relationships and the producti"ity of social life are "isuali6ed ;ecause gender pro"ides a form through >hich these "isions are reali6ed, it is also formed by them 4f >e must stop thinAing that at the heart of Melanesian culture is a hierarchical relation bet>een society and the indi"idual, >e must also stop thinAing that an opposition bet>een male and female must be about the control of men and >omen o"er each other 8ealising this ought to create fresh grounds for analy6ing the nature of that opposition and of interse.ual domination in these societies ;eyond /egation We do not, of course, ha"e to imagine that these ideas e.ist as a set of ground rules or a Aind of template for e"erything that Melanesians page3*( Page *6 do or say 8ather, as in the manner in >hich Westerners may thinA about the relationship bet>een indi"idual and society, they occur at moments >hen Melanesians d>ell on the reason or causes for actions They are the DculturalE form that their thoughts taAetantamount to a theory of social action As an implemented or acted upon theory, >e might eGually >ell call it a practice of social action 4ndeed, these constructs become "isible on occasions >hen people do not simply >ish to reflect on the causes of action but to create the conditions for fresh actions Actions are Ano>n by their effects and outcomes These constructs are thus also a theory and practice of production 4 return to the point that one Aind of producti"e acti"ity Dthe Western anthropological analysis found in this booAE is being used to e"oAe another Aind of producti"e acti"ity Dho> the people 4 call Melanesians conceptuali6e the causes and outcomes of actionE +"en if commensurability >ere desirable, ho>e"er close the attempt to represent the one in terms of the other, the aims of the t>o acti"ities are Guite disparate 4t is ob"iously shortsighted merely to be disparaging, to say that FourF ideas are FethnocentricF and that >e should looA at FtheirF ideas 4nstead, as 4 ha"e argued, >e need to be conscious of the form that our o>n thoughts taAe, for >e need to be conscious of our o>n interests in the matter Din this case, the interests of Western anthropologists in the analysis of other societiesE An appreciation of the interested nature of all producti"e acti"ity, academic or other>ise, is one thing The fact that our thoughts come already formed, that >e thinA through images, presents an interesting problem for literary production itself Their ideas must be made to appear through the shapes >e gi"e to our ideas +.ploiting the semantics of negation Dthe I or : ha"e Fno societyFE is to pursue the mirror,image possibility of suggesting that one type of social life is the in"erse of another This is the fiction of the us2them di"ide The intention is not an ontological statement to the effect that there e.ists a type of social life based on premises in an in"erse relation to our o>n 8ather, it is to utili6e the language that belongs to our o>n in order to create a contrast internal to it #onseGuently, the strategy of an us2them di"ide is not meant to suggest that Melanesian societies can be presented in a timeless, monolithic >ay, nor to assume some fi.ity in their state,of,being >hich renders them obJects of Ano>ledge And there is more to it than their entry into anthropological accounts as figments of the Western imagination The intention is to maAe e.plicit the practice of anthropological description itself, >hich creates its o>n conte.t in page3*6 Page *% >hich ideas dra>n from different social origins are Aept distinct by reference to those origins #reating a Aind of mirror,imagery gi"es a form to our thoughts about the differences The strategy of negation can contribute to a larger strategy To say the I do not ha"e this or that is a statement highly dependent on the character of >hat this or that is for those >ho do ha"e it 4t can thus be seen simultaneously as a displacement of meaning and as an e.tension of it 4 displace >hat F>eF thinA society is by a set of different constructs, promoted in opposition to order to suggest an analogy >ith FtheirF

"ie> At the same time, that "ery analogy grasped as a comparison, treating both sets of ideas as formulae for social action, *' then e.tends for us the original meaning of the concept The idea of FanalysisF is integral to the argument Much of the material of this booA rests on symbolic e.egesis, that is, on the elucidation of >hat an earlier anthropology >ould call peopleFs representations of themsel"es, in their "alues and e.pectations and in the significances they gi"e to artifacts and e"ents The analytical procedure thus appears to be that of a decoding type ;ut it is important to be clear >hat the obJect of the e.ercise is @ne is not follo>ing through a decoding procedure that Melanesians >ould also follo> through if they >ished to bring to the surface a total map of their construction of meanings As >e Ano>, indigenous e.egetical acti"ity consists in the creation of further symbols and images, for >hich further decoding on the obser"erFs part then becomes necessary Sperber puts it: Le.egesis is not an interpretation but rather an e.tension of the symbol and must itself be interpretedL D*$%(:01E 4ndigenous decoding, so to speaA, taAes the form of transformation or symbolic inno"ation The necessity to inno"ate is characteristic of all cultural acti"ity 4t amounts to the cultural necessity to attribute meaning to e"ery successi"e act, e"ent, and element, and to formulate that meaning in terms of already Ano>n referents or conte.ts The metaphor may be one that has been repeated millions of times before, or it may be a completely original creation, but in either case it achie"es its e.pressi"e force through the contrast that it presents and the analogy that this contrast elicits DWagner *$%):&E This can be no less true of e.ogenous decoding procedures, of the relations that anthropologists lay out and the imitations or analogies they stri"e to create Anthropological e.egesis must be taAen for >hat it is: an effort to create a >orld parallel to the percei"ed >orld in an e.pressi"e medium D>ritingE that sets do>n its o>n conditions of intelligibility The creati", page3*% Page *& ity of the >ritten language is thus both resource and limitation ;y language, 4 include here the arts of narration, the structuring of te.ts and plots, and the manner in >hich >hat is thus e.pressed al>ays arri"es in a finished or completed DholisticE state, already formed, already a composition of sorts 5ecomposing these forms can only be done through deploying different forms, other compositions As a style of narration, analysis itself is a mode some>hat underrated in the current debates on ethnographic >riting :et one might see analysis as a trope for the representation of Ano>ledge, La >ay of speaAing relati"e to the purposes of a discourseL DTyler *$&1:0)&E -ascinating literary issues lie in the manner in >hich >e do indeed decompose e"ents, acts, significations in order to interpret FmeaningsF or theori6e about the relationship bet>een "ariables 4 thus find interest in the categories of analysis that ha"e been applied to the elucidation of social systems in Melanesia, most prominently perhaps that of Fthe giftF They are all heuristics And it is in this sense that 4 taAe gift e.change as a heuristic As >ith the other t>o fictions, the po>er of gift e.change as an idea lies in the contri"ance of an internal dialogue of sorts 7ere, the dialogue belongs strictly to discourse >ithin anthropology The contrast sustained in this booA bet>een commodity systems and gift systems of e.change is taAen directly from GregoryFs D*$&)E >orA Gregory himself insists that the t>o types of e.change are found together #ertainly this is true for contemporary Melanesian societies for as long as they ha"e been studied by Westerners, and his o>n account is embedded in a study of change and the coe.istence of both forms in colonial and postcolonial Melanesia /e"ertheless, insofar as he grounds the predominance of gift e.change in a Fclan,basedF as opposed to a Fclass,basedF society, he does suggest that the character of the predominant form of e.change has distincti"e social correlates 4t is important to the >ay 4 proceed that the forms so contrasted are different in social origin, e"en though the manner in >hich they are e.pressed must belong commensurately >ithin a single DWesternE discourse Thus a culture dominated by ideas about property o>nership can only imagine the absence of such ideas in specific >ays 4n addition, it sets up its o>n internal contrasts This is especially true for the contrast bet>een commodities and gifts: the terms form a single cultural pair >ithin Western political,economy discourse, though they can be used to typify differences bet>een economies that are not party to the discourse, for e.ample non,Western economies that may beha"e according to a particular page3*&

Page *$ political,economy theory >ithout themsel"es ha"ing a political,economy theory The metaphor of the FgiftF, then, holds a particular place >ithin Western formulations, and that placement is one 4 e.ploit in delineating its relation to its implied counterpart FcommodityF 4magining that one might characteri6e a >hole economy in terms of the pre"alence of gift e.change as opposed to one dominated by commodity e.change opens up conceptual possibilities for the language that concei"es of a contrast bet>een them Thus one can manipulate recei"ed usages of terms such as FpersonsF and FthingsF or FsubJectsF and FobJectsF And thus one can contri"e an analysis >hich, to follo> TylerFs musings about discourse as trope, in being FFNnOeither fully coherent >ithin itself nor gi"en specious consistency through referential correspondence >ith a >orld e.ternal to itself, announces brief coherences and enacts momentary Fas ifF correspondences relati"e to our purposes, interests, and interpreti"e abilitiesL D*$&1:0)$E The internal dialogue is formed from the multiple >ays in >hich >e might organi6e our Ano>ledge of Melanesian societies through a single language of analysis That analysis, one might add, is of course at its o>n historical point in time When Mauss D*$(1:chap 1E >as defending his use of the term FgiftF to refer to economies based on gift e.change, he then had in mind a contrast >ith the principles of the Fso called natural economyF or FutilitarianismF The idea of FcommoditiesF allo>s us to organi6e a different range of data -or the moment, 4 merely assert the ad"antage of the contrast To talA about the gift constantly e"oAes the possibility that the description >ould looA "ery different if one >ere talAing instead about commodities -inally, then, if our cultural productions depend on inno"ation, it is no surprise that much anthropological >riting is polemical The arrangements of analytical categories are o"erthro>n ;ut displacement can only come from a pre"ious position 4t thus e.tends that pre"ious position rather than refutes it This acti"ity is the hallmarA of social science Too often >e disparage the mo"ement from one position to another as relati"ity The disparagement hides the cumulati"e achie"ement of social science, >hich is constantly to build up the conditions from >hich the >orld can be apprehended ane> ** That regenerati"e capacity constitutes the ability to e.tend meanings, to occupy different "ie>points More than mimesissocial science imitating its subJect matterit maAes a distincti"e contribution to a >orld that in so many other conte.ts dra>s on tech, page3*$ Page )' nology for its models for inno"ation The metaphoric e.pansions of technology are persuasi"ely self,referential and self,"alidating There appears to be a natural transformation of ideas into engines that >orA and thus e"ince the ideas at >orA The process images a special Aind of cumulati"e Ano>ledge: it celebrates the possibility of maAing the entire uni"erse F>orAF, that is, of pro"ing that our ideas about the uni"erse >orA Technological Ano>ledge builds up to this end, but not so the Ano>ledge accumulated through social science At staAe here are >ays to create the conditions for ne> thoughts Meyer -ortes >as fond of pointing out that the force of food taboos lay in the Ano>ledge that a person can eat only for him or herself; it is not an acti"ity someone can do for another The same is true of thinAing Thoughts e.ist only as Fne>ly thoughtF, by this or that person As Wagner obser"es: 7uman actions are additi"e, serial, and cumulati"e; each indi"idual act stands in a particular relationship to the life of the indi"idual or the group, and it also FaddsF something, in a literal or figurati"e sense, to these continuities and to the situation itself Thus e"ery act, ho>e"er habitual or repetitious, extends the culture of the actor in a certain sense D*$%):&, original emphasisE 4f this is true of human action in general, >e succumb it to an interesting di"ision of labor Western technology assumes the constant production of ne> and different things, an indi"iduating obsession Sahlins D*$%6E attributed to the culture of bourgeois society ;ut in the bourgeois "ie>, social life consists in the constant rearrangement of the same things DpersonsE 4t follo>s from this "ie> that social arrangements can ne"er >orA out in any finished sense, if only because our apprehension of them not only shifts but must be made to shift :et >hat is freshly grasped each time is the possibility of a holistic description #reating the grounds for ne> thoughts emerges as a Aind of deliberate counterproduction The necessity to concei"e each ne> understanding as at once totali6ing and incomplete is intrinsic to Western culture, as it >ould ha"e to be >ith that cultureFs e"er incomplete proJect Social science seeAs to maAe that proJect an obJect of Ano>ledge 4ts preoccupation is the totali6ing FrelationshipF bet>een the indi"idual and society, bet>een culture and nature The terms are apprehended as irreducible; the transformation of one into the other as partial 4 am a>are as 4 >rite that dichotomy belongs to a DmodernistE

phase already culturally superseded /e"ertheless, it still has po>er as a collecti"i6ing obsession page3)' Page )* defining a culture that defines itself as less than the uni"erse ;y definition, it can ne"er >orA completely The Western "ie> of Western culture, then, liAe its "ie> of social science, is that it is perpetually unfinished The autonomy of the indi"idual and the recalcitrance of nature seem to pro"e the point The e.tent to >hich >e also percei"e the scope of humanAindFs domination o"er the >orld merely pro"ides alternati"e proof, for >e regard that relationship as both open to constant modification and based on an ultimate difference, as indeed >e do that bet>een men and >omen page3)* Page ))

) A Place in the -eminist 5ebate -eminist debate lies beyond the social sciences in another sense 4ts premises are not those of an incomplete proJect, an openness to the di"ersity of social e.perience that presents itself for description 4ts openness is of a different Aind, its community of scholars differently constituted After all, the idea of an incomplete proJect suggests that completion might be possible; feminist debate is a radical one to the e.tent that it must share >ith other radicalisms the premise that completion is undesirable The aim is not an adeGuate description but the e.posing of interests that inform the acti"ity of description as such 4 e.aggerate the contrast -eminist scholarship and social science share a similar structure in that their o"ert premises are not the a.iomatic apprehensions of the >orld that inform paradigms in a natural science mode They are competiti"ely based 4t is as common to find "ie>points being held openly in relation to one another as to find one superseding another To a much lesser e.tent, ho>e"er, has feminist inGuiry an interest in the relati"ity of "ie>points -or it does not, 4 thinA, seeA for constantly fresh conceptuali6ations of social life: it seeAs for only one 4t seeAs for all the >ays in >hich it >ould maAe a difference to the >orlds >e Ano> to acAno>ledge >omenFs as >ell as menFs perspecti"es <no>ledge is thus dually concei"ed and to that e.tent mirrors perpetual conflict 4t is a distincti"e characteristic of social science that it can accommodate such a "ie> among its many positions :et at the same time, a page3)) Page )0 conflict "ie> of Ano>ledge must displace all other positions @ne cannot be a half,hearted radical The conseGuences are interesting The changing perspecti"es of social science, its promotion of multiple "ie>points, each contributing its part to the >hole, yield a sense of perspecti"e itself, at least in its modernist phase 5escriptions are framed by different perspecti"es on a subJect matter @ne mo"es from one to another 4ndeed, the subJect matter, so to speaA, may also ha"e its o>n Fperspecti"eF #reating a distance bet>een scholar and obJect of Ano>ledge thereby establishes e.actly that Aind of tertiary understanding that empathi6es >ith its subJects in a distincti"e form not a"ailable to the subJects themsel"es -eminist scholarship also appears full of perspecti"es The multiple base to its debates is created through its deliberate interdisciplinary openness and the competiti"eness bet>een its o>n internal approaches 4ndeed, the self,conscious labelling of its positions are illuminating here 9iberal, 8adical, Mar.ist, Socialist feminists talA in relation to one another @ne position e"oAes others :et the manner in >hich these multiple positions are constantly recalled has a further effect They do not come together as parts of a >hole but are held as coe"al presences >ithin discussion +ach bears its o>n pro.imity to e.perience The optical illusion of holding among oursel"es many perspecti"es all at once simultaneously achie"es a sense of no perspecti"e And thus the constitution of our discourse, the internal pluralism, in fact endorses feminismFs chief aim At staAe for feminist as opposed to other scholars is the promotion of >omenFs interests, that is, the promotion of a single perspecti"e 4n the end, the FinterestsF are not so much those internal to the construction of

Ano>ledgethe canons of an adeGuate descriptionas ones e.ternal to it They come from the social >orld of >hich >e are also part Precisely because >omenFs perspecti"e is concei"ed in resistance to or in conflict >ith menFs, feminists occupy only one of these t>o positions The creation of the other happens outside us -rom the internal standpoint of our o>n position, then, to ha"e FoneF perspecti"e means to ha"e no Fperspecti"eF @ne inhabits the >orld as one finds it 7a"ing no perspecti"e is diacritic of the postmodern epoch The >ay in >hich feminist scholarship organi6es Ano>ledge challenges the manner in >hich much social science, including anthropology, also organi6es Ano>ledge 4ne"itably, among other things, it taAes apart the concept of FsocietyFthere is no such transcendental entity in the feminist "ie> that is not the ideological artifact of a category of persons >ho are rather less than the society upon >hose behalf they claim to speaA page3)0 Page )1 @rgani6ing <no>ledge F-eminismF cannot be spoAen of as a unitary phenomenon ;ut rather than here replicate the comple.ity and range of >riting that goes under its name, 4 offer a brief comment on that comple.ity itself There is an emphatic styli6ation to our self,described differences While many feminists assume that >omen e"ery>here occupy positions comparable to one another Din one >ay or another oppressedE, in terms of their o>n scholarly practice they sustain a differentiation of positions 4f at base these are eGui"alent Done can comprehend >omenFs oppression through a 8adical position on >omenFs separateness, or through a Socialist position that gi"es eGual >eight to se.ism and capitalism in accounting for se.ual ineGuality, and so onE, then only through theoretical >orA are the "ie>s Aept differentiated The possibility of feminists differing Las to >hether there are any real theoretical differences bet>een them at allL DSayers *$&):*%*E thus lies in the con"entional or artificial character of the differentiation The positions are created as dependent upon one another Theoretical differences contribute, then, to a debate constituted and sustained by cross,reference 4n our self,representations, feminists are in constant dialogue, an interlocution that maintains internal connections 4t looAs as though there is an impossible array of positions, but the positions are openly held in relation to one another They comprise La self,referential body of thoughtL D+isenstein *$&1:.i.E Much feminist >riting is conseGuently concerned >ith maAing e.plicit one "ie>point >ith respect to others De g , ;arrett *$&'; +lshtain *$&*; Sayers *$&)E 4n the +nglish,speaAing >orld, for instance, to >hich my remarAs largely refer, Mar.ist2Socialist feminism places itself in relation to both 8adical and 9iberal feminism The strategy of separatism or the arguments of biological essentialism ha"e to be countered ;ut these other "ie>points are ne"er dispatched /o "ie>point alone is self,reproducti"e: all the positions in the debate comprise the theoretical base of any one 4n other >ords, the "ast number of internal debates Dcriticism; counter,criticism and commentary; >riters talAing about one another; a fragmentation at the le"el of the indi"idual argumentsE together create a field of sorts, a discourse -eminism lies in the debate itself 4f, in the tradition of radical criticism, feminist inGuiry e.poses assumptions about the ine"itability of pre"ailing conditions, it does so through a counterpart "ision of society that taAes a plural rather than a holistic form Thus feminist organi6ations, sensiti"e to the particular page3)1 Page )( interests of >omen, are also sensiti"e to the interests of ethnic minorities and to the ethnici6ation of attributes such as se.uality A definiti"e attribute comes to denote a political position, or a theoretical one in critiGues of society * -or the potential for all positions to be FethnicallyF concei"ed is the political2theoretical face of the aesthetics of plural style The Lmodernist aestheticL that pro"ided a perspecti"e on the >orld >as LlinAed to the conception of a uniGue self and pri"ate identityL D=ameson *$&(:**1E 4f nobody no> has a uniGue, pri"ate >orld to e.press, then it remains only for stylesattributesto speaA to one another This thro>s light on a notable debate bet>een Mar.ist2Socialist and 8adical feminism: >hether primacy should be accorded to class or to gender di"isions 4t comes, 4 thinA, from our pluralist, ethnicist "ision that is intrinsically at odds >ith the systemic, structured modelling of society upon >hich class analysis must rest ) ;arrett states that the Lideas of N8Oadical feminism are for the most part incompatible >ith, >hen not e.plicitly hostile to, those of Mar.ism and indeed one of its political proJects has been to sho> ho> >omen ha"e been betrayed by socialists and socialismL D*$&':1E She endorses <uhn and WolpeFs obser"ation, Lthat

much mar.ist analysis, in subsuming >omen to the general categories of that problematicclass relations, labour process, the state, and so on, fails to confront the specificity of >omenFs oppressionL D*$%&:&E :oung et al D*$&*E deal >ith the same issue in the conte.t of feminist theories of de"elopment Dsee also #aplan and ;uJra *$%&E And Mac<innon >rites, LMar.ists ha"e critici6ed feminism as bourgeois NforO to analy6e society in terms of se. ignores class di"isions among >omen -eminists charge that mar.ism is male defined that analy6ing society e.clusi"ely in class terms ignores the distincti"e social e.periences of the se.esL D*$&):01E 5istincti"ely, then, FfeminismF, that is, the feminist component of this or that theoretical approach, taAes system or structure for granted 4t does not pretend to an independent DholisticE theory of society as such 0 4ts ends are not those of representation, and system, being taAen for granted, is not replicated as the aim of its scholarly practice To appreciate the di"ersity of conditions to be found in different societies is not to reflect on different modes of systemati6ation but to lay out the "ariety of circumstances that practical action must taAe into account 1 #onseGuently, feminismFs theoretical concerns are critical and interpretati"e They focus upon the manner in >hich certain structures are perpetuated to the ad"antage of men, upon the e.tent to >hich L>omen page3)( Page )6 suffer from systemic social inJustice because of their se.L D8ichards *$&):***)E Where it addresses formulations of FsocietyF, feminist scholarship dra>s on specific theori6ing from other intellectual domains such as psychoanalysis or Mar.ism itself DMc5onough and 7arrison *$%&:*(E :et class analysis >ould reGuire a holistic model of society Specific interests >ould be located in relation to one another, the subordination or e.ploitation of particular categories of persons seen as a systemic conseGuence of relations of production -rom this point of "ie>, ideas such as property or person belong to the common ideology >hich these relations promote and of >hich they are part The particular forms that internal conflict and contradiction taAe are determined by producti"e processes, and it is the interconnections bet>een processes and relations that analysis lays open -eminist analysis, on the other hand, by and large prompts a more autonomous "ie> of po>er relations Men and >omen, as gendered beings, are al>ays differently situated The interrelationship bet>een FfemaleF and FmaleF interests may be understood >ith respect to each other, but the moti"ation behind those interests is generally held to inhere in the separate e.istence of the social categories themsel"es -or the pluralist "ision implies that ideologies ha"e their origins in the promotion of identifiable, mutually e.ternali6ed interests, rather than in the internally interconnected >orAings of a system An immediate remedy appears to lie in autonomy Since domination is regarded as constituted by the "ery relations that e.ist bet>een men and >omen, it maAes sense for >omen to demonstrate that the relations themsel"es can be dispensed >ith Thus Matthe>s D*$&1:*$E: LThe feminist historian looAs first at >omen, not in relation to men, but as autonomous shapers and creators of meaning L FThe systemF that puts >omen in a dependent position is regarded as an artifact of male interests 5espite disclaimers to the contrary, such as 8ichardsF assertion that feminism is not concerned >ith a group of people but >ith a type of inJustice D*$&):0)6E, the comprehension of counterpart female interests is crucial This debate re"eals the doubly problematic standing of the concept of FsocietyF in feminist discourse 4t either has a taAen,for,granted status, as a system beyond the interests of feminist inGuiry, and2or is assaulted as the locus of a male ideology that fails to recogni6e the plural character of the real >orld ;ut this >orld is more than plural; it is also one of conflict The politici6ed labels by >hich different feminist positions ad"ertise themsel"es indicate that the field of debate is seen as deri"ing from page3)6 Page )% li"ed e.perience 4ts grounding lies in Guestions to do >ith reform and change This placement of reflecti"e debate and practical premise2application is part of the tension bet>een a theoretical positionfeminist thought as an intellectual acti"ityand a concreti6ed aime.orci6ing the problem of >omen -eminist academics apply their scholarship to concepts and ideas >hose origins lie in a >orld of conflict, >here categories such as F>omenF and Fmale,female relationsF cause people to act Thus Lany analysis of ideology is an analysis of social relations Noriginal emphasisO themsel"es, not a reflection of social relations in the >orld of ideasL DMc5onough and 7arrison *$%&:*%E An e.periential dimension in"ests conceptual categories >ith ontological status: to that e.tent they do not need thinAing about; they are acted upon -eminist a>areness

of other >omen taAes the category F>omenF for granted D;uJra *$%&E 7ence, the fore>ord to %eminist &heory collapses theory into e.perience: Lfeminist theory is fundamentally e.perientialL D<eohane and Gelpi *$&):"iiE :et general Western Ano>ledge practices also suggest one can turn to academics for illumination of such states of affairs 4f e.perience presents categories such as Foppressed >omenF and Fse.ual ineGualityF, then systemati6ing disciplines should be able to e.plain, order, arrange such e.periences Anthropologists are repeatedly asAed Guestions about the uni"ersal "alidity of biological determinism in Guestions of se.ual ineGuality D8osaldo *$&':0$)E #on"ersely, academic acti"ity may taAe apart the slogans of feminist politics ;arrett D*$&':$6E properly argues that such criticism often fails to Lappreciate the grounding of such slogans in particular historical strugglesL; one cannot re>ord political struggle as a con"ersation So t>o radicalisms emerge: D*E a radical politics: concerned to change our o>n condition, >e see it in the condition of others too, and seeA for change >here"er >e encounter persons liAe oursel"es; and D)E a radical scholarship, >hich Guestions the grounds upon >hich identity is constructed or conditions shared #hanging the >ay one thinAs may or may not be regarded as practical action, but academic radicalism often appears to result in other>ise conser"ati"e action or nonaction 8adical politics, in turn, has to be conceptually conser"ati"e That is, its Job is to operationali6e already understood concepts or categories, such as FeGualityF or FmenF 4t is in the radical nature of much feminist scholarship that potential lies for anthropological scholarship, but the field of or conte.t for feminist debate itself D>omenFs oppressionE entails the acti"ation of conceptually conser"ati"e constructs >ith >hich anthropologists may too easily lose patience ( page3)% Page )& 4nsofar as the feminist debate is necessarily a politici6ed one, our common ground or field is thus concei"ed as the practical contribution that feminist scholarship maAes to the solution or dissolution of the problem of >omen ;ecause of the nature and constitution of the debate, any piece of scholarship must occupy a position on this issue: there is none that is not a "ie>point, that does not either contribute internally to the debate or e.ternally oppose its premises Thus ethnographic accounts of other societies cannot be seen as simply a more or less unbiased elucidation of the subordination or freedom of >omen They sort into the camps of those >ho taAe ineGuality to be uni"ersal in relations bet>een the se.es and those >ho see it as a product of particular social forms To present an ethnographic account as authentic DLthese are the conditions in this societyLE cannot a"oid being Judged for the position it occupies in this particular debate ;y failing to taAe up an e.plicit feminist position, 4 ha"e, on occasion, been regarded as not a feminist 7ere one can sympathi6e >ith the impatience sometimes sho>n to>ards general anthropology Within feminist scholarship, it is the relations bet>een the "arious "ie>points >hich are of absorbing interest They reflect the multiple e.periences of the female condition 7o>e"er di"isi"e, these also establish something of a unity of purpose They necessarily displace the absorbing interests of anthropology, >hich >ould set out relations bet>een >omenFs condition in this or that society "ia the relationship bet>een actorsF and obser"ersF perspecti"es 4n the same >ay as mainstream anthropology tends to reduce feminist theory to one among many theories, encompassing it as part of its theoretical di"ersity DeclecticismE, feminist acti"ists might >ell reduce anthropological Ano>ledge of other societies to little other than more or less informed documentation of the di"ersity of conditions under >hich >omen li"e Quoting 8osaldoFs statement that gender is not a unitary fact determined e"ery>here by the same sorts of concerns, +isenstein describes one direction for feminist theory: to incorporate the insights of a >oman,centered analysis >ithout Jettisoning the basic understanding of the social construction of gender, into a rene>ed commitment to the struggle for fundamental social change -irst among Nits necessary constituent elementsO >ould be a retreat from a false uni"ersalism, and a sensiti"ity to the di"ersity of >omenFs e.periences and needs D*$&1:*1*E ;ut she assimilates this di"ersity to dialogue ;elief in the automatic commonalities of all >omen is to be superseded Lby the sounds of a page3)& Page )$ dialogue among many "oices, blacA, >hite, and bro>nFF D*$&1:*1)E 4t may be the case, as she goes on to adduce, that >omen speaA to one another e"en as they also speaA from their o>n histories and cultures ;ut unliAe the discourse created by different theoretical positions, taAen up competiti"ely in e.plicit relation

bet>een themsel"es, different histories and cultures are not necessarily formed >ith other histories and cultures in mind F5ialogueF is as much a contri"ance as is the anthropologistFs Ftranslation of culturesF And a dialogue of cultures is a fancy 4t certainly cannot be taAen for granted that, simply because they are collected together, the "oices >ill address in their different "ersions the same problem The Problem @f Women The structure of feminist debate has interesting conseGuences 4ts pluralist "ision endorses a "ie> of society at large as a composite of multiple, irreconcilable interests; there is no single rubric under >hich one could describe them all and thus no FsocietyF in a collecti"e sense At the same time, from the "ie>point of any one of these interests, such as the >omenFs mo"ement itself considered in relation to other encla"es F>ithinF society, society is taAen as e.ternal to it The result is a dualistic "ision 4n its account of itself, >omenFs point of "ie> contains a duality analogous to that of the mar.ist proletariat -eminism does not see its "ie> as subJecti"e, partial, or underdetermined but as a critiGue of the purported generality, disinterestedness, and uni"ersality of prior accounts DMac<innon *$&):)))0E That single critical perspecti"e is created in the e.ternal challenge of another DFpatriarchyFE >hose perspecti"e it >ould be nonsense also to adopt @ne further result is that this e.ternal constraint can be seen, from the point of the single perspecti"e that constitutes it, to be e"er present Thus it maAes sense to asA feminist Guestions any>here 4neGualities bet>een the se.es ha"e been interpreted as a uni"ersal phenomenon 4n fact, >ithin feminist anthropology, there is a li"ely debate about the status of this assumption -eminists >ho are also anthropologists are engaged in the double negotiation of both anthropological and feminist premises :et one might remarA upon the con"ergence of certain premises that appear to belong to both These stem from the location of both feminist scholarship and anthropology >ithin Western culture and its metaphysical obsessions >ith the relationship bet>een the indi"idual and society While the hegemony of these ideas page3)$ Page 0' is open to radical critiGue, much of the critiGue is, in fact, fuelled by them, seduced by their hierarchical form: the conditions of e.istence are held to lie beyond the fact of form itself -ormsas in the form of social arrangementsappear approachable as autonomous obJects of Ano>ledge The classic premise of the comparati"e method in anthropology, for instance, that social institutions, roles, and so forth can indeed be compared, runs close to the assumption >ithin feminist inGuiry that it can be asAed of >omen e"ery>here >hether they are dominated by FmenF, or by FsocietyF for that matter 4n both accounts, different societies appear as analogues of one another Although they ob"iously do things FdifferentlyF, they all sol"e or confront the same original problems of human e.istence Men and >omen pro"ide prime e.emplars of the issues in Guestion The biology that maAes them irreducibly different is regarded as at once determining and being o"ercome by the infinite "arieties of cultural e.perience that adapt, elaborate on, and modify the gi"ens of nature What is seen as most open to elaboration is, of course, culture or society itselfthat is, not so much the bodies of men and >omen but the con"entional arrangement of the relationship bet>een them 6 5epending on ho> culture and society is regarded, the relationship may then be percei"ed as the "ehicle through >hich to o"ercome difference, or else it is set aside and the incontro"ertibility of bodily difference is used to defy >hat is then held up as a rationalist >orld "ie> D+lshtain *$&1E ;ut that ultimate difference is seen as uni"ersally presenting a problem for relationships as such 4n a conclusion to a >orA that appeared at the beginning of the recent upsurge of interest in gender relations, 7utt D*$%):*00E discusses the implications of difference bet>een the se.es That se. differences e.ist, she argues, is an incontro"ertible biological fact, but >hether such differences should result in differential treatment of men and >omen is a social decision 4n practice, of course, the Guestion of eGuality is often grounded in the attempt to sho> that there is Fno differenceF, a confusion that lies at the heart of the manner in >hich Westerners thinA about symbolic acti"ity We liAe to thinA that con"entional and customary as our social arrangements are, they come to terms >ith Dadapt to, modifyE realities that e.ist independently of con"ention =ustification can e"en be sought for the con"entions themsel"es in the e.tent to >hich they successfully deal >ith >hat is Ano>n about en"ironment, biology, or the intransigence of human nature -or difference lies, it seems, in the nature of things Things are to be compared in terms

page30' Page 0* of their intrinsic Gualities; and if this is a precept of a ;aconian science, it continues to inform models of social life +"ery class of things, including persons defined by their gender, poses to society a simple choice: to adapt con"ention to reflect their intrinsic attributes or by con"ention stri"e to o"ercome them 7uttFs fiat is a clear statement of one of these possibilities against the bacAground of the other +ither possibility employs the same idea: the con"entions of society ha"e to come to terms >ith irreducible facts of nature All human societies may be seen as grappling >ith this problem and thus be comprehended as con"entions built on or in the face of common gi"ens of human e.istence % 4t is a >orAing tenet of the comparati"e method in anthropology that societies e"ery>here do similar Jobs in terms of e.ploiting the en"ironment, pro"iding nurture, reproducing their internal organi6ation This tenet yields the rubrics of cross,cultural comparison: to consider the >ays in >hich societies are similarly organi6ed and to comprehend the "ariety of organi6ation as e"idence of the comple. systems people de"ise for themsel"es A presumption of natural similarity comes to Justify the ethical stance that all societies are eGui"alent, at least all eGually >orthy of in"estigation and understanding The feminist analogue lies in the assumption of eGui"alence among the members of one se. >here"er they li"e, an assumption that deri"es symbolic >eight from ostensible bodily similarity +.tended to uni"ersal features of human nature, to Gualities such as aggressi"eness or "erbal sAills, the degree to >hich these are regarded as intrinsic or not supposedly reflects the degree to >hich they may be seen as determining social relations A presumption of natural similarity bet>een all the members of one se. comes to Justify the ethical stance that the same Guestions must be asAed of their conditions e"ery>here: to do less >ould be to treat some as less 4n uni"ersali6ing Guestions about >omenFs subordination, then, feminist scholarship shares >ith classical anthropology the idea that the myriad forms of social organi6ation to be found across the >orld are comparable to one another Their comparability is an e.plicit Western de"ice for the organi6ation of e.perience and Ano>ledge 4t holds not only for Judging the >ay societies adapt to this or that en"ironment Dare similar in their problem sol"ingE but for considering the differences bet>een those adaptations These ideas contain the further intriguing supposition that there is a sense in >hich persons are homologues of societies Societies are concei"ed as entities >ith their o>n special sets of page30* Page 0) features DculturesE, each internally organi6ed and thus also constituted by attributes intrinsic to themsel"es 4nsofar as any set of concepts or acts gi"es a distincti"eness to members of a particular society2culture, that distincti"eness acGuires the status of a gi"en 4t becomes an a.iomatic conte.t for their actions 4 suspect a persuasi"e Western model of ethnic identity & 5ifferences bet>een persons are comprehended as DintrinsicE attributes of the FgroupsF from >hich they come; societies e"ince not only a natural similarity among themsel"es Dsol"ing the same problemsE but also a series of differences that are internally FnaturalF to them >hen taAen as the further conte.ts for indi"idual beha"ior 4ndi"idual beha"ior, this model suggests, >ould be similar if it >ere not for these differences, and indi"idual persons ha"e to sol"e the problems these differences present for them Society thus presents itself to the person much as the nature of the >orld Dnatural en"ironment, other societiesE presents itself to society 4n the Western postulate that Ano>ledge is organi6ation, comparison conseGuently lays out the relationships bet>een these factors !nderstanding inheres in the percei"ed relations themsel"es, as though in a set of diagrams or tables,$ bet>een all the features characteristic of this situation as opposed to that The "ery act of comparison instantiates the premise that there is some natural parallel Dof either similarity or differenceE bet>een the entities being brought into relation to one another -or anthropology, the concepts of culture or society are conseGuent artifacts of such comparison *' ;ut here feminism di"erges -eminist scholarship challenges the cross,cultural enterprise for the tautology of proposing that relations bet>een the se.es are to be so e.plained by other relations, by a "ie> of the constitution of society >hich maAes society simply a conte.t for them 4n truth, the ad"ice comes most strongly from >ithin anthropology itself, from feminist anthropologists According to this cadre there is nothing in social life that is not to be understood through gender constructs and se.ual relations Society is not constructed independently of gender and cannot in this sense be an e.planatory conte.t for it Gender relations are neither more nor less autonomous than all social relations

A second critiGue is found in 7uttFs D*$%)E ad"ice about the treatment of gender differences and in the 8adical premise about the incontro"ertible bodily difference bet>een men and >omen 4t ought to be possible to accept that societies are also incontro"ertibly different but still to include them >ithin our intellectual uni"erse 4n stressing the differences rather than the similarities in peopleFs arrangements, one page30) Page 00 >ould challenge that monstrous ethnocentrism that e.tends understanding only so far as the obser"er is prepared to recogni6e in the de"ices of others similarities and parallels to de"ices of his or her o>n Wagner D*$%(E obser"ed that Westerners are ready enough to allo> other cultures creati"ity and in"ention in the >ay they elaborate social life but assume they do so in reference to the same facts of nature as inform Western in"entions Alas, anthropologists often go further than this, and in their interpretations of other peopleFs symbolic systems assume a reference to the same ideational constructs as inform their o>n in"entions :et on this double ad"ice, it seems that the pursuit of the e.otic is to be embraced for the same reasons for >hich it is commonly despised 4t lea"es the grounding on >hich the notion of FsocietyF rests, namely that social con"entions should be understood in the first place as >ays of sol"ing uni"ersal problems of human e.istence 4n truth societies are not simply problem,sol"ing mechanisms: they are also problem,creating mechanisms This is the other side of that model >hich regards indi"idual persons as ha"ing to sol"e the problems presented by their embeddedness in a particular conte.t 4n the terms of that model, society may o"ercome natural differences bet>een indi"iduals, but in so doing presents indi"iduals >ith problems peculiar to their conte.t and >ith >hich they ha"e to grapple as so many ob"ious differences >ithin the human condition 4n this sense, societies present problems eGually for men and for >omen At the least, then, >e should abandon the technological metaphor that imagines society is liAe an engine that FmaAesF things out of natural resources in order to e.tend human potential, and lay open the issue of >hether all human problems are the same ones FWomenF are a case in point The problem of >omen >as ne"er Just about >omen @"er the last t>enty years, the >oman Guestion, as it >as once called, has become e.plicitly a gender one, in anthropology and beyond Many of the issues raised by feminist >riters touch on the Ainds of relations and interrelations that preoccupy anthropologists, and a significant contribution of social anthropology has been its insistence on the con"entional nature of gender constructs, on the >ay differences bet>een male and female are conceptuali6ed 7o>e"er other cultures root these constructs in >hat they percei"e to be immutable se.ual characteristics, the constructs themsel"es are analy6ed as mutable 4t might follo> that if e"erything is constructed, then nothing is ine"itable, since the relationship bet>een social con"ention and the intrinsic nature of things is e.posed as arbitrary ;ut anthropology has more to say than this page300 Page 01 4t is also concerned, as >e ha"e seen, >ith the FnaturalnessF of structuresthat is, >ith the manner in >hich sets of actions or concepts constrain beha"ior, and conseGuently >ith relationships that are not arbitrary, and >ith outcomes that may >ell be ine"itable Thus, to argue that >hat happens to >omen Gua >omen is a function of >hat happens to men Gua men is not to postulate that >omenFs concerns are relati"e to or subsumed by those of men but that neither can be understood >ithout comprehending the relationship bet>een them Present from the start of the ne> >a"e of feminist scholarship has been the implication that in tacAling this relationship one is in a sense tacAling all relationships 4t is not Just the general point that one relationship cannot be considered independently of others -eminist >orA is specifically de"oted to elucidating the reach of ideas about gender and the gendering of ideas throughout Western culture #onsidering >omenFs place in society leads to Guestioning the foundation of society itself, and the highly charged concept of patriarchy signals this inGuiry Social con"entions are seen as so imbued >ith the "alues appropriate to and created by one se. rather than the other that a double arbitrariness is re"ealed: society is con"ention, and it is con"ention that men are prominent in it Anthropology is looAed to for cross,cultural e"idence on both scores Whether >omen are the same FproblemF in all societies is to be ans>ered both in terms of >hat the societies are liAe and >hat relations bet>een the se.es are liAe There is disagreement among feminist anthropologists about >hether or not men are uni"ersally prominent Dsee e g , the discussions in Schlegel *$%%; 8osaldo *$&'; AtAinson *$&); ;ell *$&0E; but there is agreement that anthropologyFs tasA is to unco"er the presence or absence of male prominence, and by the same toAen unco"er the foundations of

gender relations, in concrete social instances To specify the conte.t in each particular case reduces the arbitrariness for that case 4ndeed, menFs prominence has been documented again and again, >ith a Aind of fascinating ine"itability to it, e"en though each concrete, sociohistorical instance seems to offer its o>n reasons -or the part of the >orld >ith >hich 4 am concerned, the Melanesian islands of the Pacific, and especially the 7ighlands of the largest of them, Papua /e> Guinea, menFs general prominence in public affairs seems undisputed My interest is, furthermore, in cases >here >hole phases of religious engagement are defined as e.clusi"ely male affairs, >here the descent groups that form the principal political blocs are formed patrilineally, and >here prominence in public affairs accompa, page301 Page 0( nies o"ert e.pressions of dominance o"er >omen 7o>e"er one might modify the picture by analy6ing >omenFs roles, considering informal domains of action or estimating >omenFs input into politics, the delineation of the chief institutions by >hich >e recogni6e FsocietyF taAe their cue from the organi6ational sAills of men rather than >omen 4ndeed, "isible collecti"e life appears a male rather than a female artifact 4n considering these cases, 4 propose to utili6e the t>o critiGues The first challenges the "ie> that societies differ among themsel"es but all ha"e to cope >ith the same problems of human e.istence, including relations bet>een the se.es as naturally gi"en entities, so that >hat are to be e.plained are the independently concei"ed societies 4 build on the feminist insight that in dealing >ith relations bet>een the se.es, one is dealing >ith social relations at large The one does not e.plain the other The second critiGue concerns the incontro"ertibility of difference 4deas of natural difference support the significance gi"en to relations )et#een things in the e.ercise of systemati6ation 4n order not to assume that relations are e"ery>here apprehended as taAing place against the same natural bacAground, bet>een the same FthingsF, or Das argued in the last chapterE in the same Fconte.tsF, 4 shall deliberately esche> an implicit comparison bet>een 7ighlands collecti"e life and the Western idea of society 4n doing so 4 shall also maAe it apparent that the assumptions of natural difference that Westerners locate in the bodily constitution of men and >omen are no more useful a guide to understanding the Melanesian imagination than is the Western pri"ileging of relations bet>een indi"iduals as the locus of society Western Guestions about male dominance Fin societyF subsume the problem of >omen as a uni"ersal one for the organi6ation of relations Without that problem, the character of menFs prominence becomes interesting in its o>n right -eminist Anthropology ?arious of the Guestions raised here apply to both mainstream comparati"e anthropology and to >hat might also be called mainstream feminist scholarship; they e.ist as recogni6able positions that each has on the other ;ut one might liAe to thinA that they >ere prompted also by interests that belonged completely to neitherthat one could identify a Ffeminist anthropologyF facing both >ays Such a practice >ould occupy the special position of conte.tuali6ing both anthropological and feminist premises ;ut it >ould be >rong to gi"e the impression that page30( Page 06 feminist anthropology can out,conte.tuali6e them, that it operates as a Aind of super,conte.t or super,system or indeed that it is some embracing body of Ano>ledge that encompasses both 4t is neither system nor body 4f the beast e.ists at all, it is a hybrid, a cyborg D7ara>ay *$&(E -eminists and anthropologists comprise different communities of scholars; 7ara>ayFs image of half,animal, half,machine captures their incompatibility 4t is not that they cannot come together or that they fail to communicate The point is that their combination produces the holism of neither organism nor engine Together they do not form a >hole -eminist and anthropological scholarship endorse different approaches to the nature of the >orld open to in"estigation These cannot be blended or matched Their assumptions do not coe.ist in a part,>hole relationship so that one could be absorbed by the other, nor do they ha"e common obJecti"es for mutual e.change bet>een them: the one is no substitute for the other Something of this dissonance sho>s in the reception of feminist scholarship >ithin mainstream anthropology @n the one hand, it has pro"ided a significant impetus to the in"estigation of po>er relations and the e.ploration of indigenous models @n the other hand, feminist anthropology as such has remained tentati"ely defined, encountering resistance both from those anthropologists >ho are also feminists and from the

profession at large Possibly one intellectual reason is feminismFs o>n particular potential for dissol"ing the notion of society 4n asAing pluralistic Guestions about the constitution of and authorship of rules, "alues, and models, feminist presumptions simultaneously tacAle the self,description of anthropology as to do >ith the holistic analysis of society Perhaps it is no surprise that feminist anthropologists >ho see themsel"es as taAing on the >hole of the subJect are met >ith a tendency to hi"e off >omenFs studies from the rest of the discipline Gender is easily relegated to male,female interaction, male,female interaction to the concerns of >omen, >omen to domesticityal>ays something relati"e to, contained by FsocietyF and FcultureF The concerns of >omen are regarded as less than the concerns of society -rom this process, something of a myth has arisen among anthropologists in recent years, that an interest in >omen or in male,female relations necessarily in"ol"es feminism as a theoretical stance, and that feminism in"ented the study of them 4t is a myth of containment 4t reduces a theoretical position to a singular and concrete subJect matter, and it relegates interest in gender and the concerns of >omen to a particular theoretical position page306 Page 0% AugR discusses the recent ethnologi6ing of history, >hich he suggests increasingly Llatches on to obJects that are traditionally thought of as anthropological DliAe myth, >omen, childhood, death, etc EL D*$&):**)E The aside is illuminating FWomenF are assimilated to FobJectsF of study, on a par >ith >hat they also create or e.perience Dmyth, childhood, deathE; and they are regarded as specially the obJects of anthropological concern This gi"es them a mundane e.oticism: mundane as part of the e"eryday life that history no> disco"ers and e.otic as the pro"ince of the discipline professionally concerned >ith other cultures :et there is a Aernel of truth in AugRFs remarA Anthropology long dealt >ith >omen and >ith gender as subJects of inGuiry: Fthe position of >omenF, as it used to be called, >as a regular item on the ethnographic agenda ;ut it is eGually mythological to pretend that the ne> >a"e of feminist,inspired interest in >omen continues a traditional one to >hich anthropology can lay prior claim, so taAing the study of gender in its stride T>o myths must be disposed of: that feminism in"ented anthropological interest in >omen and gender as subJects of study; and, its opposite, that current feminist interest in these matters simply sustains an old anthropological tradition ;oth rest on an eGuation bet>een feminism as a theory and >omen as its subJect matter 4t remains true that anthropological accounts can no longer get by >ithout e.amination 4f formulations about the nature of society, its dominant institutions, po>er relations, or assumptions about human nature promote specific interests, then the account must specify >hose F"ie>F is being described @f course, identifying different "ie>s may lead to the post hoc identifying of social positions; differences and contradictions bet>een "ie>s are e.ternali6ed as the differences that lie bet>een persons and that bring them into opposition The feminist assumption is that men and >omen >ill be di"ided by social interest, and unless ideology is e.amined in relation to those interests, the analysis remains nai"e 4ndicating the e.tent to >hich anthropological accounts incorporate male bias thus Guestions the specific origin of the ideas >hich inform the analysis itself :et this is all good anthropological ad"ice, "ery much on anthropologyFs home ground DAtAinson *$&)E 4t is not in itself an adeGuate e.planation of the dissonance Much of the a>A>ardness in the relationship bet>een feminism and anthropology lies rather in the structure of their epistemological styles 4t renders their relationship a hybrid @ne is contemplating a hybrid of epochs Academic feminist scholarshipthe >ay in >hich its many "oices are positioned as speaAing to one another, its Lsimultaneous page30% Page 0& acti"ity on multiple frontsL D@>ens *$&(:60Ehas a postmodern structure The perspecti"al, us2them dichotomies of much contemporary anthropology belong to a modernist epoch This appreciation of its modernism might only ha"e been made possible by current e.periments in postmodern >riting among anthropologists themsel"es, but the multidisciplinary, multi"ocal field of feminist con"ersations long anticipated such e.perimentation My account e.ploits perspecti"al de"ices, including the us2them dichotomy, as essential fictions to its argument 4 e"en include Fthe feminist "oiceF as one perspecti"e ;ut 4 hope 4 ha"e not thereby homogeni6ed it -or @>ens D*$&(:6)E notes that the Lfeminist "oice is usually regarded as one among many, its insistence on difference as testimony to the pluralism of the times,L thereby maAing it "ictim to assimilation as an undifferentiated category in itself 4ts internal differences are suppressed in the adoption of Fthe feminist

"ie>F This is certainly >hat seems to ha"e happened >ithin anthropology at large 7ere, a current pluralism of sorts encourages eclecticism and tolerance for a range of gro>ths and directions The feminist anthropology that emerged in the mid,*$%'s is seen to be part of the disciplineFs labile responsi"eness to changing e.ternal conditions 4t is tolerated as another approach, another >ay into the data to be put alongside multiple other >ays -acilitated by the apparent concreteness of feminist aims, such tolerance in the end has had the constraining effect to >hich 4 made reference The pluralism of feminist debate is, by contrast, not so much the eclecticism of multiple potential "ie>points, to be occupied in turn, as the construal of a discourse The se"eral "antage points are not to be e.changed for one another but sustain their differences as so many distinct "oices #ommon ground lies in e.perience, consciousness, the moti"ation to change the present order ** +.amining FfeminismF in relation to other academic fields in"ites potential solipsism -eminist theory >ill ha"e dra>n on the same common broad sources of thought shared by academic practice in general Precisely because of such common sources, almost any single anthropological position on gender could be matched >ith some piece of >riting in the feminist literature ;ut the status of the differences bet>een internal positions >ill "ary The pluralism of anthropology allo>s a di"ersity of entries into the representation of human societies, thereby to some e.tent e.ternali6ed from the obser"er -eminism is admitted as one such entry 4nternal debate concerns the Guality of the representation and the status of the facts so >orAed upon The pluralism of page30& Page 0$ feminist scholarship, ho>e"er, is constructed as a matter of life,based decisions about >here one stands in relation to other feminists Anthropological studies, liAe historical, literary, or other studies, may be dra>n upon for the e"idence they gi"e of circumstances else>here in the >orld, but the subJect matter is a pluralist conception of oneFs o>n society, and debate itself is construed through a plurality of internal positions The modelling of internal and e.ternal relations remains incompatible bet>een the t>o styles of scholarship -eminist scholarship, polyphonic out of political necessity, accommodates anthropology as Fanother "oiceF Within this epistemology, anthropological analysis of male,female relations in non,Western societies in the end cannot e.plain Western e.perience, >hich is also personal e.perience, although it may contribute to the further e.periences about >hich feminists must thinA At the same time, different "ie>points are sustained in coe"al parallel; indeed, the multiplicity of e.perience is retained as a sign of authenticity +ach is a feminist "oice, but the "oices create no single "ie>point, no single perspecti"e, and no part,>hole relation bet>een themsel"es The only perspecti"e lies in the common challenge of patriarchy The contrast >ith modernist anthropology is ob"ious That endea"or does not find itself in a dichotomous position >ith the >orld 8ather, anthropology seeAs to plurali6e its relationships >ith many cultures, many cosmologies 4t creates its dichotomies >ithin, as in its modelling of an us2them Ano>ledge of its o>n conceptual constructs 4n turn, modernist anthropology accommodates feminism as it does its grasp of the intellectual systems of other peoples -eminist scholarship is to be captured for its "alue as a specifically concei"ed FotherF, a contributing part >ith its o>n aims and intentions that could not possibly be coe"al >ith those of the discipline as a >hole 4f there is anything distincti"e about feminist anthropology, it lies in the attempt to retain the specificities of particular social2historical circumstances under the generali6ing rubric of inGuiry into FFthe se.2gender systemL D8ubin *$%(:*6%E or Lthe social relations of genderL and L>hat a theory of gender in society >ould ha"e to includeL D:oung et al *$&*:i.E :et anthropologists >ho are also feminist scholars continue to find themsel"es a>A>ardly placed 9iAe their nearest colleagues, Mar.ist,Socialist feminists, they may embrace both a holistic and a pluralistic understanding of social and cultural forms The hybrid feminist,anthropology e.ists as the fruitful product of this graft ;ut >hen it comes to acAno>ledging the >ay in >hich they contribute to page30$ Page 1' one another, feminism and anthropology ha"e Guite disparate chromosome counts The relationship >orAs precisely because the graft has been done bet>een full gro>n parts >ith different origins *) 4t is a pro"isional or interim misfortune that as a conseGuence one or other position often seems to taAe a subordinate place in academic productions @ne appears to be the conte.t for thinAing about the difference the other >ould maAe Mean>hile, cyborgs, muses 7ara>ay D*$&(:$$E, Lmight consider the partial, fluid,

sometimes aspect of se. and se.ual embodiment Gender,L she adds, Lmight not be global identity after all L ;y gender she means se.ual identity, that is, a dichotomous natural difference biologically concei"ed We need the discipline to hold the thought page31' Page 1*

PA8T @/+ page31* Page 10

0 Groups: Se.ual Antagonism in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands The Papua /e> Guinea 7ighlands >ere opened up to in"estigation at a particular moment in the e.pansion of post,>ar anthropology /one of the ethnographic reportage from that era is untouched by the concerns of the day, and the residue of those concerns is deeply sedimented in the >ay in >hich the ethnographic materials themsel"es >ere shaped Although my remarAs are not confined to the region, 4 use it as the site for a minihistory of the changing formulations of >hat first the study of male,female relations and then the study of gender relations has come to mean 4t is easy to o"erlooA ho> recently coined FgenderF is in its contemporary sense: until t>o decades ago, the term >as rarely used e.cept as a matter of grammatical classificationa purist position to >hich some occasionally demand return 4t did not maAe a substantial appearance until the early *$%'s * :et Melanesian anthropology had sustained a long and distinguished contribution to the study of >hat >ere once called Fmale,female relationsF The manner in >hich these issues >ere treated before the *$%'s created the ethnographic materials >ith >hich subseGuent conceptuali6ations of gender relations ha"e had to deal, and it is important to ha"e some sense of that conceptual history This is particularly so for a region that displays in compressed form a general comparati"e problem concerning inter,se.ual acti"ities: ho> to specify the >idely "arying relationships that e.ist bet>een public cult acti"ity, ceremonial e.change, page310 Page 11 and DformerlyE >arfare on the one hand and the organi6ation of horticultural production and domestic Ainship on the other Put liAe this, the problem seems another rendition of the familiar dichotomy bet>een political and domestic domains or of the articulation of e.change and production 4ts symbolic e.pression, through a gender difference that maAes the political arena largely a male concern >hich e.cludes females, also maAes use of a familiar opposition The character of these processes of e.clusion and opposition ha"e been a preoccupation of anthropological descriptions since the 7ighlands first became an ethnographic area The region offers no internal comparison bet>een systems based on patrilineal and on matrilineal Ain recAoning 4 shall, nonetheless, e.tend conclusions based largely on my understanding of 7ighlands societies to >hat are, on the surface, the "ery different matrilineal regimes of seaboard Papua /e> Guinea and maAe claims indeed for their applicability to Melanesia in general Many seaboard Melanesians appear to conduct their affairs >ith emphases that >ould challenge the generality of the comparati"e problem Just outlined Societies in the Massim and /e> ;ritain pro"ide e.amples of public ceremonial life based on "alues associated >ith food production and of >omen prominent in ceremonial e.change 4t >ould thus be possible to sho> the contri"ed nature of the problem through negati"e ethnographic instance 4ndeed, it has been argued e"en for the 7ighlands that such oppositions are analytically contri"ed, and instances are adduced of the political nature of domestic decisions or the contribution of >omen to menFs affairs

5espite this, 4 taAe as my starting point instances >here the oppositions >orA most strongly 7agen society affords such an instance 7ere, the collecti"e life of men re"ol"es round the mobili6ation of political groups Dsuch as clansE in pursuit of both indi"idual and collecti"e prestige through e.changes >ith other groups, >arfare, and cult celebration 4n the conte.t of e.tolling the maleness of these acti"ities, men denigrate the sphere of domestic production in >hich >omen are prominent ;y and large, >omen do not seeA participation in menFs collecti"e life and, in certain situations, are specifically barred by "irtue of their se. They may support the underlying public "alues of prestige, but any denigration of menFs efforts carries a pri"ate rather than a public "alue, >hich is also true for menFs praise of >omenFs producti"ity and hard >orA 9angnessFs D*$%%:6E characteri6ation of ;ena ;ena, also in the central 7ighlands, is apt: Lmen are e"ery>here and al>ays entirely in charge of public affairs,L and if by politics is meant the manage, page311 Page 1( ment of public affairs, Lthen men are in absolute control of politics L Women, he adds, may ha"e influence but lacA political po>er ;ut 9angness cautions, as >e shall see, against any easy eGuation bet>een FpoliticsF and FsocietyF at large The comparati"e problem ascribed to Melanesia as a >hole is more than my problem >ith the intransigent 7agen material >rit large, although it is also that: the 7agen situation gi"es its form to the >ay 4 percei"e the problem What is pointed up in the e.treme case in these central 7ighlands systems is not only a particular set of ethnographic issues but an anthropological approach that has shaped the >ay in >hich those issues are framed Das in earlier >ritings of my o>nE 4n turn, that approach has generated the form in >hich po>erful criticisms ha"e been couched They include the suggestion that analysis emphasi6ing opposition and e.clusion turns a cultural bias into a theoretical one 4n one set of criticisms, such analysis has been held to neglect spheres in >hich >omen do ha"e po>er; in another, to neglect the e.tent to >hich menFs collecti"e life is based on access to and e.ploitation of >omenFs labor ) And that approach also gi"es us the contrary casesby imagining that the di"ision bet>een male and female domains concerns menFs and >omenFs participation in social life, >e lay >eight on counterinstances >here >omen do seem to so participate 4n approaching matters rather differently, 4 hope to conte.tuali6e both the criticisms and the search for counterinstances as themsel"es belonging to a particular phase of anthropological history This chapter begins by considering the >ay in >hich issues concerning se.ual identity in the 7ighlands >ere encapsulated >ithin anthropological preoccupations >ith group structure in the *$('s and *$6's #hapter 1 turns to a feminist,deri"ed critiGue embedded in its o>n history of the emergence of gender relations as an autonomous topic for inGuiry in the *$%'s Partial #onnections My account maAes e.plicit one common implicit practice: e.tending out from some core study certain problems that becomein the form deri"ed from that core studya general a.is of comparati"e classification The obser"er then in"estigates >hether a relationship pertinent to one place holds else>here -or e.ample, MeggittFs influential article D*$61E e.plores the relationship bet>een pollution beliefs and military alignments in one 7ighland society, and then applies the relationship across societies 4n asAing ho> >ell the one model holds up else>here, page31( Page 16 this procedure also "erifies the original connection; the relationship so utili6ed then may or may not become a FprincipleF of organi6ation or a FstructureF Meggitt himself refers modestly to FpatternsF of relationships What becomes obJectionable in much comparati"e analysis is the decentering of the initial correlation, as though it someho> belonged bet>een or across se"eral societies and >as not in the first place generated by one of them 4n being franA about the center of my o>n interest, 4 made no apology that the present e.ercise contains an attempt to understand the particular cultural forms of 7agen society and thought, and that my interest taAes its cue from Just these This strategy has t>o entailments -irst, a description that holds for 7agen ought also to hold to a degree for their neighbors across Melanesia This >ould be, in part, an artifact of the process by >hich the analysis itself proceeds, in so far as it dra>s on material from those neighbors A presumption of continuity is thus >ritten into the enterprise ;ut it is a presumption based on the historical and spatial contiguity of the societies and cultures of this region, not on supra,societal correlations The description does not ha"e to be completely replicable in order to be "alid;

but it does ha"e to be partially applicable Second, and at the same time, "ery real differences must be countenanced 4 thus sustain throughout a FdifferenceF bet>een the societies of F+asternF and of the FWesternF 7ighlands Dreferring here to geopolitical areas and not to the pro"inces by these namesE 4t is an artificial one in so far as that contrast must stand for all the possible contrasts that one might >ish to bring in "ie> bet>een the se"eral social and cultural systems of the 7ighlands These >e must apprehend as connected to one another but only partially so -urther FdifferencesF bet>een the 7ighlands and societies of the island Massim and of ?anuatu underline the point The contrast itself dates bacA to the early days of anthropological in"estigation in the 7ighlands and to initial administrati"e boundaries 4f instead of deploying a contrast, one >ere to o"er"ie> the >hole area, one might >ish to pinpoint certain sociocultural gradients, by >ay of analogy >ith biotype gradients De g , 7yndman *$&)E @ne >ould then become a>are of a di"erse number of centers from >hich to e.tend rather different problematics 5espite all the continuities that e.ist, for e.ample, bet>een the societies of Papua /e> Guinea at large and 4rian =aya, it is clear that the differences bet>een the 7ighlands of the former and the 9o>lands of the latter are also Guite radical -or much gender symbolism, the par, page316 Page 1% ticipation of men and >omen in fertility rituals, and the organi6ation of performances, one might seeA for parallels in Aboriginal Australia rather than the eastern part of the same island 4f that is so, then the dri"ing fiction of this present accountthe emphasis 4 gi"e to gift e.change>ill cease to so dri"e Dsee M Strathern *$&(aE Similar breaAs could be constructed bet>een Papua /e> Guinea systems that incorporate a hunting and gathering regime by contrast >ith e.clusi"ely horticultural economies, as #ollier and 8osaldo D*$&*E hint in their comparison of brideser"ice, and bride>ealth,based marriage arrangements; or bet>een those >ith intensi"e and those >ith e.tensi"e horticulture De g , 8ubel and 8osman *$%&:01*01(; ModJesAa *$&)E As is true of the distribution of flutes across the 7ighlands, >hat seems of fundamental importance in one area disconcertingly appears else>here in a tri"ial or nonessential conte.t That does not render them tri"ial in the original conte.t of inGuiry ;ut it forces on us an understanding of that conte.t that goes beyond the presence or absence of particular traits, and thus beyond the capabilities of a "ariate analysis @nly e.perimental e.tension out from the original inGuiry >ill yield the limits of the analytical po>er that particular conceptual de"ices hold 4 taAe, then, a 7ighlands,centric problematic in concentrating on the manner in >hich public, collecti"e life is constituted as the affair of men There is a concomitant to this Melanesian societies "ary in the e.tent to >hich collecti"e action is oriented to>ards Ainship,based transactions and those >here it is di"orced from them and creates "alues only contingently in"ol"ed >ith Ainship D8ubel and 8osman *$%&; Godelier *$&); Allen *$&1E Thus, for some peoples, it is the central stages of life,crises and the documentation of Ain relations >hich are the principal focus for ceremonial The producti"ity of Ain,based relations may be celebrated in e.changes accompanying reproduction and the production of food, or sister,e.change and the creation of moieties may maAe political formation indistinguishable from Ainship relations 4nstances are found in the +astern 7ighlands :et, there may be parallel acti"ities in these same societies >hose ends are not simply Justified by reference to some body of Ain relationships but >hich autonomously refer to the desirability of collecti"e action itself #eremonial e.change also appears to be for its o>n saAe Where, in other societies, this assumes a significant organi6ational role, group formation increases in scale Peoples in the Western 7ighlands and their immediate Southern 7ighlands neighbors come to mind The e.tent to >hich FpoliticsF can thus be separated out as a dis, page31% Page 1& tinct domain of social life D>ith its o>n "aluesE in"ol"es differences in the nature of group boundaries as >ell as in styles of leadership D>hether there are big men or notE, in the >ay in >hich F>ealthF e.ists as an independent category, and in the percei"ed autonomy of persons MaJor life crises are e"ery>here ceremoniali6ed, and there is a greater or lesser degree of political interest attached to the organi6ation of Ainship @n the one hand, then, collecti"e life may appear to create more Ainshipto sustain and elaborate relations based on the cooperati"e acti"ities of reproduction and horticulture @n the other hand, it may create "alues that ha"e little to do >ith or are deliberately opposed to those of

Ainship Prestige, for instance, can become conceptually detached as a goal in itself, e"inced in the possibility of men comparing themsel"es in its terms alone The degree of detachment of FpoliticsF as an autonomous sphere of action has conseGuences for the Ainds of "alues structured through gender formulations /e"ertheless, there is more to the comparison of these systems than acAno>ledgment of the inflated political acti"ity of some @ne cannot e.plain the presence of such FpoliticsF by itself 8ather, politics must be located >ithin the same sets of conditions that gi"e rise to differences bet>een Ainship structures Specific structurings in interpersonal relations yield "arying possibilities for the >ay in >hich persons relate to, are detached from, and transact >ith one another 4ndeed, 4 shall argue that forms of collecti"e life are intimately bound up >ith the constructs of domestic Ainship ;ut this is Guite different from suggesting that public life DFsocietyFE is domestic life DFAinshipFE >rit large An assumption >hich has dogged analyses of 7ighlands societies is that clan relations are a "ariety of Ain relations, that someho> they are the public face of Ainship This has led to difficulties in the analytical conceptuali6ation of clanship, captured in disputations o"er the nature of descent groups Dde 9eper"anche *$6%*$6&:*0&*0$; -eil *$&1a:()E 4t has also led to a misrecognition of their collecti"e nature ;y collecti"e, 4 mean forms of acti"ity in >hich persons come together on the basis of shared characteristics What they hold in common is regarded as the rationale of their concerted action This is usually group affiliation or gender Shared characteristics may lead to sharing actions, or they may promote competition and ri"alry o"er >hat is not shared Thus, 4 define as collecti"e action not simply the mobili6ed internal solidarity of clan groups but relations bet>een clans >here they are di"ided by something to >hich they can all lay claimsuch as their names or reputations and indi"idual histories As is >ell recorded in Melane, page31& Page 1$ sian ethnography, the creation of ineGualities bet>een men and clan groups is based on a premise of eGuality, and in so far as they are ri"als and enemies, men are held to share common if competiti"e interests Such relationships are, ho>e"er, separate from those asymmetrically construed, >here interaction proceeds on the basis of and in reference to the particularity of an inherent difference bet>een the parties 4nteraction here reproduces the dependency that such differentiated persons ha"e upon one another; >hat is shared cannot be concreti6ed as >hat they ha"e in common, bar the relationship bet>een them The se.ual di"ision of labor is a case in point Where production is seen to deri"e from the acti"ities of t>o socially distinct persons, it is literally construed as the product of the relationship bet>een them 4t does not itself directly augment the one at the e.pense of the other, there being no common measure bet>een them 0 Melanesian public and political acti"ity has a collecti"e character, >hereas horticultural production and domestic Ainship sustain particular relations #ollecti"e and particular relations are combined and separated in differing >ays 4ndeed, on occasion, each may pro"ide the rhetoric through >hich the other is percei"ed -rom the early ethnographic >riting on the 7ighlands, ho>e"er, one >ould imagine that 7ighlanders concei"ed the contrast as bet>een FsocietyF and Findi"idualF or, >orse, bet>een FcultureF and FnatureF Anthropology 4n The 7ighlands: Groups The 7ighlands >ere first e.plored in the *$0's, and brought under administrati"e control after the Second World War: anthropologists embarAed on studies in the *$('s The prospecting party >hich first fle> into the Wahgi "alley sa> >ealthcreeAs >hich might carry gold or potential cattle country; they also sa> fertile soil and La teeming population L1 The social scale impressed the anthropologists 7ighlands populations >ere numerically large for Papua /e> Guinea More than that, they seemed highly organi6ed and cohesi"e; >arfare >as conducted on a maJor scale, and men mobili6ed themsel"es in units and alliances for that purpose 4n fact, the larger central 7ighlands societiesMendi, 7agen, +nga, #himbu, and those in the GoroAa areadominated the ethnographic map for t>enty years /o>adays, they appear rather atypical 7istory goes that anthropologists disco"ered descent groups #oming page31$ Page (' from a traditional Jural,political Africanist bacAground, the early ethnographers found tribes, lineages, clans The impressi"e political organi6ation of the 7ighlanders inspired >orAs such as MeggittFs &he Lineage !ystem of the Mae2Enga D*$6(E, and a comparati"e interest in lineality and agnation De g , Salisbury *$(6;

;ro>n *$6)E African models >ere thus found in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands, >hile their conseGuent demolition o"er time has since challenged descent theory itself This history does not tell its o>n story 8emarAably, at the same time as descent groups >ere being described, so >ere the e.ceptions Dsee A Strathern *$&):0(E Where patriliny and agnatic Ainship >ere disco"ered, so >as the troublesome fact of FnonagnatesF 4n addition, these societies presented problems for the analytical conceptuali6ation of cohesion and of organi6ation itself @ne early account >as called Excess and Restraint D;erndt *$6)E, another subtitled %reedom and Conformity D8eay *$($E; there >as discussion about FloosenessF and Ffle.ibilityF What remained at the heart of the subseGuent debates, ho>e"er, >as a conflation bet>een social structure and, >hether they >ere to be thought of as descent groups or local groups, the acti"ities of political units ( 4ndeed, the "ery debates, including the Guestion of alliance rather than descent models,6 ser"ed to demarcate the significant topic of study as the organi6ation of groups The manner in >hich groups conferred membership status might be ambiguous, but their coming together in the defense of interests and self,promotion >as not -ocus upon their lineal or nonlineal character tooA for granted that these groups presented themsel"es to obser"ers as organi6ed political entities The point >as grasped through an attempt to oppose locality as a principle of organi6ation o"er and against descent Dcompare 9angness *$61; de 9eper"anche *$6%*$6&E, arguments that in turn ser"ed to perpetuate the notion that the impetus for collecti"e beha"ior lay in the attributes that these groups of men claimed to ha"e in common An ideology of shared characteristics DFone fatherF, Fone menFs houseFE >as regarded as the cause of social identity and as the reason for protecting it We might put it that a uni"ersal relation bet>een society and indi"idual >as taAen to assume a local form in the relationship bet>een groups and their indi"idual members -rom one "ie>point, the contro"ersy o"er nonagnates remained a formal matter, a Guestion of the propriety of the concept of unilineal descent That claims to group membership could be made on the basis of ties traced through mothers, as >ell as fathers, affected analytical page3(' Page (* decisions about the nature of group constitution more than it did the perception of 7ighlands group solidarity After all, one of the contentious points >as that such solidarity >as promoted regardless of lineality That relations through >omen >ere in"ol"ed >as, in this "ie>, simply a matter of ho> groups concei"ed of differences and similarities bet>een themsel"es -rom a second point of "ie>, ho>e"er, substanti"e significance >as made of the troubling fact of >omenFs presence The necessary interdependence of clans through marriage >as one thing; this did not preclude relations of hostility >ith affines 4ncorporating sistersF sons >as another The female tie >as a logical intrusion Perhaps the contro"ersy o"er nonagnates held center stage for so long in response to a contingent and adJacent area of ethnographic encounter, namely 7ighlands menFs apparent preoccupation >ith their e.clusi"eness as a se. That FpatrilinealF groups >ere open to members recruited on nonmale ties appeared to compromise the efficacy of their claims to solidarity ;ecause of the tenor of male,female relations, as they >ere being described in contemporary anthropological accounts, the compromise made little psychological sense, and much analytical >orA >as de"oted to sho>ing the manner in >hich the intractable gi"ens of nonlineal status >ere subJect to con"ersion, so that o"er time nonagnates became agnates, or residence came to determine Ainship De g , 8yan *$($; A Strathern *$%)E Preoccupation >hich the descent issue must be understood, then, in relation to the analyses of male,female relations being made at the same time Male dogmas of solidarity >ere being interpreted not only in terms of inter,group competition bet>een men, but also as a matter of menFs relations >ith >omen Women, >hose Ainship position on formal grounds might merely signify the manner in >hich men classified their relations to one another, >ere simultaneously being credited >ith posing real life threats to male cohesion When 9angness and Weschler offered their readings on Melanesia, they noted that the most sustained research effort to focus on a single topic >as in the FFstudy of social structureL D*$%*:$(E !nder this head they gathered fi"e paper dealing >ith disputes o"er the nature of segmentary lineage systems The booA >as also organi6ed according to the categories ecology and economics, social process, and social change +.cluded from structure, but included in process, in their terms a matter of FlifeF as opposed to Fstructural principlesF, is ceremonial e.change, conception theory, mortuary and fertility ritual, and, passim, male,female relations That particular notion of structure belonged to a theoretical page3(*

Page () tradition also concerned to specify the conditions of social integration % 4n the absence of indigenous preoccupations >ith legal rights and statuses, the study of groups in the Papua /e> Guinea 7ighlands became "ery much a study of group solidarity And it >as precisely those areas of acti"ity demarcated as FprocessFritual and male,female relationsthat offset the >hole issue of solidarity As Wagner D*$%1E obser"ed, anthropologists conseGuently set about maAing 7ighlandersF problems their o>n Patrilineal descent became a problem of male identity and thus a problem that their analytical models shared >ith menFs apparent folA models: ho> to preser"e the idea of the DdescentE group as a male body of agnates in spite of the possibility of claiming ties through >omen Gi"en the emotional reGuirements of solidarity and cohesion, 7ighlands men had to preser"e their maleness from the threats, intrusions, and allurements of >omen Positi"e ties >ith >omen Dsee 9angness *$6%; although compare *$61:*&'E >ere as challenging to their collecti"e maleness as negati"e ones This >as the state of the art on the e"e of the ne> feminism Gender entered almost e"ery account of 7ighlands societies through the supposition that social structure >as concerned >ith DmaleE groups; that groups faced problems of cohesion; that cohesion >as bound up >ith group definition and group definition >ith solidary feelings among its members; that things to do >ith >omen threatened male solidarity; and that this >as a problem men faced <eesing D*$&):)0E sums up the argument: L4n a social order >here male loyalty to fello> males is the foundation for >arfare and the solidarity of the local group it is ties >ith >omen that pose the greatest threat, from both >ithin and >ithout L So it >as not that >omen >ere ignored by either the men in their societies, or by their obser"es: it >as, as + Ardener D*$%)E remarAed in Guite another conte.t, that >omen >ere the >hole problem The issue of solidarity >as al>ays presented through a strong e.periential dimension -or instance, MeggittFs *$61 paper on male,female relations addressed the Lantagonism per"ading inter,se.ual encounters,L a characteri6ation established by one of the first anthropological field>orAers in the 7ighlands, 8ead D*$(1E ?ariations in inter,se. hostility bet>een societies, Meggitt argued, could be correlated >ith the presence or absence of purificatory cults to rid men of female pollution, differences in >omenFs social status, and the degree of hostility bet>een affinally,related groups Meggitt turned the argument in t>o >ays: first, in terms of cultural categories that associated men >ith one constellation of cultural traits and >omen >ith another; second, in terms of so, page3() Page (0 cial categories, in that Das far as Mae +nga >ere concernedE attributing of hostility and lethal influence to >omen could be associated >ith menFs e.periences of marrying >i"es from enemy groups & The >ord antagonism combined it all: 7ighlanders >ere typified by Lpre"ailing aggressi"enessL DMeggitt Guoting 8eadE and a significant manifestation of this aggressi"eness >as se.ual antagonism What >as reported about male,female relations thus tended to turn on the antipathy bet>een the se.eshostility 9angness openly called it Apropos ;ena ;ena he obser"ed, LMale solidarity in"ol"es the residential separation of the se.es, and a comple. of beliefs and sanctions that e.ist to buttress the social distance bet>een males and females L 7e >ent on to note that >hile the beliefs and sanctions >ere functional in terms of group sur"i"al Din a conte.t of >arfareE, they >ere at the cost of indi"idual se. and dependency needs and thus Lultimately promote hostility and antagonism bet>een the se.esL D*$6%:*60E 9iAe Meggitt, 9angness >idens the >hole issue of male,female relations to >arfare and political confrontation These ethnographers are not relegating >omen to some subsidiary status: they are integrating beliefs about the nature of >omen >ith the >ider so,called Fsocial structureF ;ut the tension is imagined from the emotional demands of that structure: Mae +nga demands for group solidarity in the face of clan enemies, ;ena ;ena demands for >arliAe beha"ior on the part of >arriors The sanctions and beliefs to >hich 9angness refers included restrictions arising from fears of pollution and from ritual and cult acti"ity #ults that mobili6ed a male membership >ere largely secret affairs; they e.cluded >omen and might be in conJunction >ith or necessitate the initiation of boys into their congregation They captured the anthropological imagination Anthropology 4n The 7ighlands: Se.ual Antagonism The debate o"er the nature of Papua /e> Guinea 7ighlands descent groups has all but e.tinguished itself; the se.ual antagonism model has endured long beyond

8eadFs *$('s interpretation >as seminal $ 7e described the then e.tant cult of the sacred nama flutes in GahuAu,Gama in the +astern 7ighlands The sociological functions of the cult, especially in the conte.t of menFs initiation rites, are understood as follo>s: page3(0 Page (1 The initiation rites ser"e primarily to introduce the younger members of the community into the menFs organi6ation They e.press unmistaAeably the rigid se. dichotomy of the culture, the community of male interests and their essential opposition to the sphere of >omen, and also designate successi"e stages of physiological and social gro>th NTheyO are the supreme e.pression of the community of interests bet>een men D*$%*N*$()O:))0, ))(E A Fcommunity of interests bet>een menF is embodied in a conception of Fthe >hole subtribeF, and men are specifically concerned >ith male gro>th or maturation, so that there is a gamut of associations here from community to social category to se. identity When 8ead refers to the cult as Lpreeminently both an affirmation and e.pression of the enduring order of established forms of male relationshipsL D*$%*:))6E, >e understand the designation at once se.ually and socially 4n this conte.t, it seems self,e"ident that the se.es should be segregated /ot Just segregation of the se.es but male domination is at issue The cults are described as an Lartificial and consciously contri"ed mechanism through >hich men hope to demonstrate and preser"e their superior statusL D*$%*:))6Ethe nama cult is both an inde. of male dominance and an institution maintaining male hegemony Male ascendancy is thus taAen as men dominating >omen, >ith >omen spiritually dependent on menFs control of the flutes and the ancestral past $ama is represented by GahuAu,Gama men as a channel of supernatural force upon >hich the >elfare of the group depends, menFs acti"ities being clearly >ritten into those institutions >hich uphold groups Male superiority is thus "ested in >hat is recogni6ed as FsocietyF *' 4n addition male superiority has a status in this account as a manifestation of FculturalF beha"ior 4t became a commonplace to follo> 8eadFs other obser"ation that Lthe superiority of the male has largely to be achie"edL D*$%*:))&E 7e emphasi6es that GahuAu,Gama men labor under an initial Lphysiological inferiorityL that leads them continually to Lassert their dominance in cultural termsL D*$%*:))&))$E As he put it later D*$&):6&E, the edifice of male superiority >as, in fact, erected on a male secret that >omen >ere biologically superior MenFs cults are thus seen as at once an embodiment of society and of culture: of society, since male collecti"e life has ends of its o>n, particularly in promoting a community of males >ho endorse GahuAu,Gama social "alues; and of culture, in so far as it rests on deliberate artifice There is a slippage here, then, bet>een the >ay in >hich the obser"er concei"es social structure and GahuAu,Gama menFs notion of collecti"e page3(1 Page (( lifeits manifestation in ancestral connection, the promotion of general >elfare, and the specific defense of subtribe and tribe 8ead says at one point that LN>Oomen are not present at any of the ceremonies yet the festi"als are for them, no less than for the men, the clima. of social lifeL D*$%*:)0(E he concluded his *$() paper as follo>s: LThe force >hich the nama symboli6e is the po>er of society itselfL D*$%*:)0&E Although reflecti"ely 8ead appro"es of 9angnessFs D*$%*E interpretation that the nama cult represented a peculiar Aind of 5urAheimian religion in >hich society apparently >orshiped only men D*$&):6&E, in fact, 9angness challenges the idea that the cult symboli6es the po>er of society itself 4f it does, it is a society that e.cludes >omen ;ut the point is lost in that additional eGuation The original eGuation bet>een male collecti"e life and FsocietyF anthropologically concei"ed is sustained by the parallel one bet>een the description of GahuAu,Gama menFs creati"ity in designing and performing the cults and the anthropological concept of FcultureF 8ead himself prefaces his appro"al of 9angnessFs remarAs by stating that GahuAu,Gama culture >as stridently masculine To the Western +uropean "ie>, culture is production, it maAes things; it is artifice, it builds on an underlying nature; and it is an agent, a manifestation of po>er and efficacy, for in >hat should po>er and efficacy be sho>n but in the taming of the natural >orld and the products of the created oneM And here in the heart of Papua /e> Guinea are GahuAu,Gama men recogni6ably doing >hat anthropologists call cultural acti"ities -or it is reported that their o>n dogmas suggest that they must o"ercome >hat they see as an imbalance in nature Women pose to men a problem of FnatureF in the eyes of the actors and obser"ers aliAe **

4n the inter"ening period since 8ead first >rote, much fresh ethnography has added to anthropological Ano>ledge of ritual as is found in the nama cult comple. in the +astern 7ighlands Generali6ations run the recogni6ed danger of assuming that there is a single genus of Fmale cultismF D<eesing *$&):(E; and in reference to any one area there is difficulty in deciding from a range of rituals >hich should be counted as part of Fmale initiationF D/e>man and ;oyd *$&):)10E ;ut Guite apart from ethnographic discontinuities bet>een bachelor cults, secret fertility rituals, puberty seGuences at marriage, and so on, as >ell as the linguistic and sociological differences bet>een different congeries of 7ighlands societies, one can discern common interests on the part of page3(( Page (6 the in"estigators ;y and large, they sustain theoretical continuity >ith the descriptions first de"eloped for the +astern 7ighlands societies and the form that se.ual antagonism taAes there #ontinuity is pro"ided by the premise that >here cults in"ol"e the initiation of boys, as they often do, then their purpose is to maAe boys into men 4t is >orth considering ho> this proposition is made con"incing 9ooAing bacA on his research, 8ead D*$&):%0E stresses that one cannot dismiss the understanding of FsubJecti"e e.perienceF neither in accounting for >hy the cults ha"e since disappeared nor in understanding GahuAu,Gama culture at a time >hen it >as dominated by menFs need to be >arriors Thirty years after 8eadFs initial studies, 7erdt properly Guestions Lthe con"entional anthropological "ie> that /e> Guinea male myth and idioms only represent the collecti"e assertion of male superiority and solidarity o"er >omenL D*$&*:)60E 7e gi"es a most interesting t>ist to the physiological doubts that 8ead reported in GahuAu,Gama ideas about maturation Among the Sambia, >ho are located on the "ery edge of the +astern 7ighlands, 7erdt suggests >hat myth and ritual really disguise are menFs deep doubts about their maleness Myth con"erts the fear that a man has feminine attributes into a positi"e con"iction that he is masculine 7e describes the fear as a transse.ual fantasy in masculine beha"ior *) 4ndeed, one of 7erdtFs contributions to Melanesian ethnography lies in his e.tensi"e e.ploration of the manner in >hich Sambia indi"iduals percei"e their identity The se.ual antagonism model emerges in 7erdtFs >orA >ith refinement -or instance, the "olume edited >ith Poole de"elops the point not Just that >omen are a problem for men but that men are a problem for themsel"es: LMale se. role dramati6ation and male incorporation in solidary adult groups are problematic phenomenaL D7erdt and Poole *$&):)0E @ne must agree >hen they D*$&):)1E >rite as follo>s: We can no longer FreadF beha"iour from the specifications of ideology, and >e must recogni6e that men and >omen may formulate different ideological "ersions of each other both men and >omen must be allo>ed to FspeaAF in our ethnographies on their condition and "ie> of each other Nmy emphasisO :et the ne.t sentence reads: @ur understanding of the experience Nmy emphasisO of self, gender and se.uality, and of the informal tenor of inter,se.ual relations, must no> come to the foreground of our analyses page3(6 Page (% 4deology in this account is thus seen to Fco"erF beha"ior and e.perience, and the e.perience of self is merged >ith that of gender and se.uality SubJecti"e e.perience >as al>ays central to the se.ual antagonism model in the prominence gi"en to the attachment of se. roles to the indi"idual 4t contains a theory of sociali6ation 7ence, the psychosocial processes of initiation ceremonies Lpro"ide a means for assigning statuses and roles to indi"idualsL D7erdt *$&*:)$(,)$6E *0 4ndeed, 7erdt deliberately characteri6es recent de"elopments in Melanesian ethnography as pa"ing the >ay for La ne> anthropology of ritual e.perienceL D*$&)c:.i.E >ith its specific interest in affect and the self The anthropology of e.perience is especially sensiti"e to the emotional correlates of these sociali6ation processes, thus ser"ing a theoretical postulate about Lsocial conditioningL D*$&*:0E Masculinity and femininity are embodied in indi"iduals as a dimension of their e.perience Social categories become the frame>orA >ithin >hich men and >omen beha"e in certain >ays, but beha"ior is ultimately manifested by the indi"idual, >hose ontogeny therefore becomes a focus of interest

The indi"idual in this "ie> is a source of action, an embodiment of sentiment and emotion, author of ideas, and one >ho re"eals the imprint of culture This is not a simple matter of personality but sho>s in comple. phenomenaattachments, dissociations, trauma, fears >ith respect to FothersF Since the indi"idual as an agent is also concei"ed as a single entity, many of her or his problems are presented e.istentially, as boundary ones 8ead D*$&1:)*0E appositely cites Geert6Fs obser"ation about the peculiarity of the Western conception, of the person as bounded and integrated, and set contrasti"ely against other such >holes and against a natural and social bacAground :et the conceptuali6ation of the person as indi"idual, as a being that >orries about its boundaries and searches for a unitary identity, remains an unspoAen premise in the anthropology of e.perience Thus, in his first "olume on the Sambia, 7erdt states that for him the anthropological tasA is to e.plain a pu66ling pattern of culturally constituted de"elopment in >hich Sambia heterose.ual manhood emerges only after years of normati"ely prescribed and prolonged homose.ual acti"ities D*$&*:)E The pu66le must become the nature of Sambia FmasculinityF Sambia men, he >rites, Lneed to sense themsel"es as unambiguously masculineL D*$&*:0'(E This formulation, of men as indi"iduals needing to e.perience a unitary identity, is both attributed to the /e> Guinea culture page3(% Page (& and adopted by the obser"er *1 4 suspect it underlies the description of menFs interaction >ith >omen in terms of antagonism #haracteri6ing relationships as antagonistic captures the indi"idual actor as agonist and records the imprint of encounter >ith others in terms of the feeling subJect @thers pose problems for the self 7erdt is critical of the concept of se.ual antagonism itself 7e and Poole D*$&):)*E list nineteen different theoretical conte.ts in >hich it has been used They point out that in the history of Papua /e> Guinea ethnography the concept has done three things: D*E it enabled obser"ers to pin do>n a sense of cultural pattern o"er a di"erse ethnographic area; D)E it metaphorically co"ered a linAage bet>een indi"idual feelings and social beha"ior; and D0E it belonged to and contributed to a debate o"er the e.tent to >hich se. and gender could be interpreted in the light of taAen,for,granted norms :et >hate"er re"olutions there ha"e been in our interpretations of se.ual beha"ior, the parallel concept of Fe.perienceF, >hich >as part of the Fse.ual antagonismF model, continues to tie us to certain perceptions of gender 4n this guise, the model endures There is for Western +uropeans a persuasi"e element to the presentation of subJecti"e e.perience 4 cannot, for instance, read PooleFs D*$&)E account of ;imin,<usAusmin initiation >ithout maAing a fascinated2repelled connection >ith the horrific traumati6ation of the boys *( To gi"e less than full "ent to the emotional impact on the anthropological obser"er >ould be to diminish the range of phenomena, including the emotions, that reGuire comprehension What 4 >ish to unearth from the presentation of e.perience, ho>e"er, is an approach to gender relations, particularly through the eGuation bet>een gender relations and se.ual identity, >hich does another Aind of "iolence to the material 7agen has no initiation practices of significance; therefore, it is not possible to Ju.tapose Fmy e.perienceF of 7agen ritual >ith that of others At my disposal is only a suggestion of an analytical nature: that the Ainds of interpretations of male ritual discussed so far ha"e a prefeminist cast to them This is not because they deal primarily >ith men, but because of the theoretical >ay in >hich indigenous gender constructs ha"e been treated The antagonism model, in so far as it endures, promotes a self,contained approach to gender that pushes the problem of indi"idual identity to the fore The assumption is that the creation of masculinity is first and foremost conceptuali6ed by the actors as a matter of se.,role acGuisition @n neither anthropological nor feminist grounds should >e, in fact, be content >ith the formula that male cults are in this sense self,e"idently concerned >ith FmaAing menF page3(& Page ($ The Problem @f Gender 4dentity 4ndi"idual se.ual identity is a cultural issue in Western society Preoccupation >ith se.ual performance, heterose.ual or homose.ual, turns erotic beha"ior into a significant source of self,definition :et the notion, for instance, that homose.ual beha"ior might in"ol"e an e.clusi"e orientation to oneFs o>n se. >ould seem to be comparati"ely recent in Western +urope *6 4t is a point 7erdt stresses in postulating that Sambia

homose.ual beha"ior does not produce Fhomose.ualsF, that is, a Lsingle identity typeL D*$&1a:.E 7is argument is that out>ard se.ual beha"ior is not necessarily formati"e of internal identityLfeelings, ideas, goals, and sense of self L*% And it is this internal identity that is the subJect of his delineation of masculinity, namely menFs sense of their o>n genderLthe de"eloping boyFs sense of himself and his malenessL D*$&*:*1E 4t >ould be unfair to maAe too much of a term that he situates >ithin psychological discourse; but 7erdtFs speciali6ed use of Fgender identityF confines gender >ithin the psychodynamics of indi"iduali6ed personal e.perience, e"en if it includes e.perience of the >orld and of others and is regarded as de"eloping in response to specific cultural demands Melanesians maAe considerable imagistic use of gender ;ut >e cannot assume that indi"idual identity is at the heart of >hat is going on #oncern >ith identity as an attribute of the indi"idual person is a Western phenomenonit is >e >ho, as Wallman D*$%&E said, maAe se. into a role The se.,role model deri"es, in turn, from certain cultural assumptions about the nature of FsocietyF To assimilate MelanesiansF understanding of initiation and puberty rituals to se.,role sociali6ation supposes the actors hold a similar model of sociality This may cloud appreciation of MelanesiansF o>n preoccupation >ith these issues -or it is important to be clear about the e.tent to >hich >e do or do not >ish to maAe their preoccupation ours +"en if >e de,intellectuali6e them as Fe.perienceF, 4 am not con"inced that >e ha"e understood e"erything about their gender concepts in understanding peopleFs orientations to>ards being men or being >omen The se.,role model does not, of course, assume that identities are only their o>n point of reference A relational "ie> is built into it Masculinity may be described as a psychosocial dialectic D7erdt *$&)a:%1E 4n addition, the solidarity of the male community e.ists at the e.pense of females D7erdt *$&)a:1&E, and the initiation system is fraught >ith internal contradiction in the relations it supposes >ith >omen D<eesing page3($ Page 6' *$&):06E *& 9angness e.plicitly argues that it is in the face of cross,se. ties that men construct their e.clusi"eness: L;oys are naturally attracted to their mothers and must be remo"ed from them by the community of malesL D9angness *$%%:*&E 7erdt bases his analyses of Sambia menFs beliefs and rites on the transse.ual fantasy that men began as a composite of maleness and femaleness L4t is my hypothesis,L he says, apropos the most secret of myths, that it Lhelps con"ert a manFs nagging fears that he has feminine attributes into a positi"e con"iction that he is masculineL D*$&*:)60E There is no doubt, then, that these analyses incorporate a relational "ie>, so that the construction of solidarity along se.ual lines is regarded as inhering in po>er relations bet>een men and >omen as >ell as in the stereotyping of their differences ;ut at the same time the se.,role model assumes that the focus of ritual concern is the indi"idual >ho is in some sense the responsi"e self There are a number of interesting affinities here to feminist discussions 7o>e"er, internal feminist debate also leads to radically di"ergent "ie>s about gender identity -or some, >hat has to be e.plained is Fgender identityF in 7erdtFs sense, the se.ed self ;ut this position, in turn, is split bet>een those >ho regard the se.ing as a prior state, and those >ho locate it in discourse *$ A further constellation of "ie>s d>ells on the ideological origin of the categories through >hich the se.ed self is thought, and thus their relation to cultural and social formation This "ie>, >hich may be claimed for and by Mar.ist2Socialist feminists, has come under attacA for its presumption of the arbitrary nature of gender ideology and for the supposition that the primal state of being is genderless, gender being acGuired through sociali6ation Gatens made one such attacA She argues that the body is al>ays imagined and thus is al>ays Lthe site of the historical and cultural specificity of masculinity and femininityL D*$&0:*()E; the situated body has to be the subJect of analysis, and it is a historic fact if it is situated in a society di"ided and organi6ed in terms of se. ;ut such specificity is not to be regarded as after the e"ent: there >as ne"er La neutral, passi"e entity, a blanA state, on >hich is inscribed "arious social FlessonsFL D*$&0:*11E )' 7er "ie> is not a biological essentialism, she maAes clear, but an account of the DconsciousE subJect as a se.ed subJect Such a "ie> attacAs the alleged neutrality of both body and consciousness found in some sociali6ation theory and in the suppositions of some Socialist feminists that a de,gendering of society is possible The neutrali6ation of difference >ould entail normali6ation, part of a rationalist program, she page36' Page 6* obJects, >hich itself in"ests hea"ily in the idea that gender is ideology and ideology is malleable

This particular account focuses on se.ual difference as an organi6ing de"ice in the construction of subJecti"ity 4t entails a "ie> of the person as an indi"idual FsubJectF, as opposed to those concerned >ith an ideological "ie> of FsocietyF and of the self as an ensemble of social relations )* +ither may claim to account for the otherFs position The debate teaches us that >e reGuire a theory of unitary identity before >e construct a theory of unitary gender identity -rom there one might asA >hich societies do indeed foster a concept of a genderless, neuter person upon >hich gender difference becomes inscribed, and >hich societies thro> up the idea of there being no persons as subJects >ho are not se.ed subJects Gi"en that both positions are claimed simultaneously in the conte.t of Western feminist debate is a fascinating FfeministF contribution /either can be taAen for granted #onseGuently, the conflation of gender and identity, the notion that gender difference is first and foremost a matter of the integration of the person as self Dagainst an otherE, must be e.amined as a specific historic form 4t is clear that a se.,role model of sociali6ation cannot be taAen in an une.amined >ay as the base line for e.ploring gender difference -or all their emphasis on real e.perience as opposed to symbolic analysis, in seeing gender as a matter of identity, as e.perienced masculinity or femininity, it is those anthropologists concerned to record ho> indi"idual persons feel >ho also, in fact, gi"e indigenous symbolism an autonomy in their analyses This could be put in ideologist terms 4deology acGuires autonomy in their accounts in so far as they argue that the cause of the symbols Dof masculinityE lies in the parameters of these symbols themsel"es DmaAing men into menE -or in appealing to ho> men and >omen thinA and feel, they allocate the >hole >oman or the >hole man to a gendered status What >omen and men do can be understood as e.emplars of >hat F>omenF and FmenF do)) and thus as the subJect matter of the difference bet>een maleness and femaleness 9ost in all this is MeadFs D*$0(:0'*E original caution that there may be societies in >hich it is not possible to FFfeel liAe a manL or Lfeel liAe a >oman L 4t remains a matter of ethnographic "erification >hether or not Fbeing a manF or Fbeing a >omanF occupies an organi6ingrepresentational, systemati6ingplace in the classification of beha"ior 9ost in all this too is a grasp of >hat the differentiationthe oppositions and e.clusionsmay be about page36* Page 6) 4n failing to see potential grounds here for relating such issues to feminist discussions of gender, either on points of agreement or disagreement, those concerned >ith identity confine themsel"es in the end to a limited "ie> of >hat is being constructed in these relations 4ndeed, one encounters a muted antagonism to feminist,deri"ed interests 8ead finds it necessary to maAe a "aledictory disclaimer: 4 find no reason to re"ise anything 4 said about the character of male,female relationships among the GahuAu,Gama in *$(': the economic, social, political and ritual subordination of >omen and the presence of FtensionF, an.iety, ambi"alence, opposition and conflict in inter,se. interests, attitudes and beha"iour 4 do not thinA this paints a one,sided picture influenced by any bias 4 may be assumed to ha"e had as a male D*$&):6%E 7e goes on to say that men cannot Ano> or e.perience fully >hat it is to be a >oman and that GahuAu >omen ne"er told him Lho> it felt L 7e describes interaction bet>een the se.es but maAes no reference to feminist issues e.cept in the conte.t of >omenFs e.pression of identity 7is en"oi states, 4 ha"e no Guarrel >ith those #omen anthropologists >ho suggest that their male colleagues ha"e tended to be neglectful if not ca"alier in their scholarly treatment of #omen Nmy emphasisO ;ut he chides them for o"erenthusiasm in their L>orthy aim of trying to demonstrate that >omen are persons in their o>n rightL D*$&):%6%%E A feminist "ie> is recogni6ed but is de,intellectuali6ed 4t is not held to impinge on the analysis of the interaction bet>een the se.es but simply comprises an essentialist eGuation bet>een F>omenF as subJects of study and F>omen anthropologistsF Moreo"er, the essentialism is compounded by his insisting that >hat one needs to counterbalance an analysis of ho> GahuAu men feel is ho> GahuAu >omen feelS The point is underlined hea"ily by 9angness in the essay >hich follo>s: 4 cannot imagine trying to ans>er fundamental Guestions of se. and gender relations >ithout further information about >hat indi"idual actors feel and thin. about >hat is going on Noriginal emphasisO D*$&):%$E )0

4n other >ords, feminist scholarship is caught by its practice of bringing into prominence >omen as a social category 4nterest in >omenFs point of "ie> is the field >ithin >hich intellectual feminist debate de"elops, yet the scholarship is bypassed in such cursory treatment -eminist page36) Page 60 thought is assimilated only to its o>n political position The search for identity that 8ead so easily assumes underlies the intention of F>omen anthropologistsF is, in fact, a matter for internal debate TaAing it for granted leads to a curious analytical lacuna in these accounts of initiation ritual and cults 4n spite of the relational frame suggested by antagonism and its synonyms, analysis boils do>n to the conflict bet>een the "alues of manhood or masculinity and the "alues of >omanhood or femininity Thus, differentiation from >omen is seen to ser"e the purpose of maAing men into men Across Melanesia, it is argued, there is a broad spectrum of Fman,maAingF rites, connected by the ideology Lthat men are a cultural artifact and >omen Din a far more fundamental senseE are simply >hat they >ere born to beL D8ead *$&1:))*E MenFs image of themsel"es is insecure, so that Guestions of identity appear pressing Such arguments eGuate gender as a role >ith se.ual identity: the problem presented by the opposite se. is >hat your o>n se. is, "i6 , male dominance is about preser"ing maleness in encounters >ith females Again, 9angness had made an important breaA >ith these arguments While he agrees that male ritual maAes >arriors, he Guestions >hether Lit is designed to maAe them men in the sense of someho> solidifying or transforming their gender identityL D*$&):&'E :et his o>n emphasis on the primacy of e.perience supports the assumption that representations of male,female relations concern only relations bet>een men and >omen The lacuna lies in the failure to asA >hat the nature of the relations is 4f the relation bet>een men and >omen is concei"ed in a contrast, then >hat is the point of contrastM What form of po>er is framed by the e.clusions and oppositionsM Analyses concerned >ith gender as identity>ith ho> >omen and men e.perience being >omen and mentaAe the relationship bet>een the se.es as a.iomatic; it is the site at >hich masculinity and femininity fight it out This is indeed FantagonismF, >here the tenor of the relationship is seen as arising from the need of each se. to car"e out an antithetical definition; in particular, men car"e out their masculinity from the FnaturalF identity of >omen, subJugating >omen and natural process itself to their control <eesing >rites, @nce >e anthropologists taAe seriously the challenge of fitting partial e.planations together, further connections come into "ie> Thus the male political solidarity stressed in sociological theories is fully congruent >ith a neo,Mar.ist emphasis on male appropriation of >omenFs labour and control page360 Page 61 o"er their reproducti"e po>ers N7e goes on:O the se.ual symbolism of phallic po>er and pseudoprocreation becomes compelling in a society >here men are created, not natural, and >here they must control >omen, >hose essential nature is darA and dangerous and beyond male regulation D*$&):00E 4f >omenFs threat to men emerges as a problem that Papua /e> Guinea men conceptuali6e, then >e are dealing >ith statements about relations 4t is the business of F>e anthropologistsF at least to asA >hat Ainds of statements they are Should >e be satisfied >ith a self,reproducti"e frame>ith a "ie> of dominant males producing males needing to be dominantM Many feminist scholars >ould concur in the proJect of elucidating categories principally by reference to the perpetuation of the categories themsel"es They >ould find nothing e.ceptional, for instance, in the obser"ation ;o>den maAes of SepiA gender symbolism in art, that if one is dealing >ith artifacts as the creations of men, then oneFs study must be complemented by >omenFs "ie>s and "alues :et there is a fla> in this dualistic approach 4n seeing menFs creations as liAely to represent a LmanFs "ie> of the >orld,L the analyst assumes that >hat men ponder upon is themsel"es, so that the artifacts that "isually e.press Lideals relating to masculinityL represent an ideali6ed e.pression Lof >hat it is to be a manL Das distinct from a >omanE in this or that society D;o>den *$&1:11%11&E The fla> lies in not maAing e.plicit the underlying theory of representation, here a nai"e correspondence bet>een the se.ed indi"idual and the autonomy of FmaleF and FfemaleF "ie>points

Since there are clear parallels bet>een Dfor instanceE ;o>denFs argument and certain feminist positions, these latter could be dismissed as redundant 4ndeed, the internal conflict bet>een feminist positions could be thought to negate all of them 7o>e"er, my intention in recalling feminist debate >as to point precisely to the internal di"ersity of stances #onstructed in relation to one another, these positions cannot be apprehended a.iomatically -ar too a.iomatically, 4 belie"e, has the se.,role model held s>ay in anthropological analyses of 7ighlands initiation and male,female antagonism 4ndi"iduals are regarded as recruited into their se. rather as clan groups recruit their members, and the boundary problems of group identity and the boundary problems of indi"idual DmasculineE identity become merged together Among the dra>bacAs of such an approach is the further assumption that identity consists in the possession of Gualifying attributes, in >hether an indi, page361 Page 6( "idual FhasF the characteristics that maAe him unambiguously masculine 4t is important to conte.tuali6e these assumptions by Ju.taposing different ones -rom >ithin feminist debate, one might turn to other positions, such as those that regard images of the se.es as referring neither to autonomous, bounded entities distinct from one another nor to the relation bet>een them DShapiro *$%$; *$&0E 4deali6ed masculinity is not necessarily Just about men; it is not necessarily Just about relations bet>een the se.es either @ne could consider, for instance, ;arrettFs critical treatment of representations She e.amines the position that ideology does not reflect FrealityF, a criticism of other feminists that could also be applied to those Melanesianists >ho taAe gender constructs as reducible to the affairs of men and >omen She Guotes Adams D*$%$E: as long as feminist theories of ideology >orA >ith a theory of representation >ithin >hich representation is al>ays a representation of reality the analysis of se.ual difference cannot be ad"anced NWOhat has to be grasped is, precisely, the production Noriginal emphasisO of differences through systems of representation; the >orA of representation produces differences that cannot be Ano>n in ad"ance D*$&':&6, &%E At the same time, ;arrett insists that representation is not free floating; it is conte.tuali6ed DLlinAed to historically constituted real relationsLE :et the constituting nature of symbolic strategies needs no introduction in anthropology, nor does a theory of their necessary conte.tuali6ation 4t is all the more surprising that anthropological accounts of gender symbolism remain so narro>ly focused on men and >omen themsel"es And it is tantali6ing, then, that in his o>n reflection on earlier analyses of the ;ena ;ena "ersion of the nama cult, 9angness should carefully obser"e that none of the rites seemed Das he put itE primarily phallic or primarily uterine LThere are, to be sure, both phallic and uterine symbols in relati"e abundance; but these are ine.tricably mi.ed togetherL D*$%%:**1E About the same time, 5undes D*$%6:)0)E pro"ocati"ely raised the old Guestion about >hether male initiation ritual femini6es or masculini6es the participants 7is ans>er, that it may do both, in"ites further Guestions about ho>, in that case, difference is established bet>een the t>o processes And ho>e"er much the differences affect the >ay in >hich >omen and men FthinAF and FfeelF, that e.perience cannot in itself pro"ide the grounds for the process of differentiation as such page36( Page 66

1 5omains: Male and -emale Models Whereas in the +astern 7ighlands male collecti"e life outside >arfare once focused on cult acti"ity of "arious Ainds, including the all,important initiation of boys, ceremonial e.change taAes that place of prominence in the Western 7ighlands 4n opening his study of Wola, * Sillitoe refers to e.change as Lthe sociological principle >hich forms the bacAbone of Wola societyL D*$%$:*E:

The premise of this study is that to understand Wola society it is necessary to appreciate ho> these people resol"e a uni"ersal parado. >hich faces manAind This parado. concerns indi"idual freedom and the restrictions >hich society places upon this freedom That is, ho> does society curb the self,interested dri"e of the indi"idual, and control beha"iour so as to allo> social co,operation bet>een people, >ithout detracting too much from the indi"idualFs freedom of action D*$%$:1E +.change mediates the parado., he says, because it contains >ithin it t>o opposing features that complement Lthe opposed forces inherent in manFs nature,L namely Lindi"idual interests "ersus community interestsL D*$%$:(E 4t both encourages sociability, as he puts it, and re>ards self,interest 4t enables men to act at once considerately and competiti"ely to>ards one another This he presents as true of e.change in general and of ceremonial e.change in particular SillitoeFs account is interesting as an attempt to get a>ay from an eGuation bet>een social structure and groups 4ndeed, he critici6es those >riters >ho ha"e argued that ceremonial e.change in Western page366 Page 6% 7ighlands societies such as 7agen Lfunctions to maintain the integrity of groupsL in competition >ith one another D*$%$:)$0E ;ut substituted for groups in his account is simply the other half of the societyindi"idual antinomy 7is e.plicitly indi"idual,oriented approach places emphasis on e.change as the Aey principle of Lsocial organi6ationL D*$%$:)$)E 8elations bet>een indi"iduals sustain it, and it in turn sustains them Social life is thus recogni6able in the balance bet>een indi"idual autonomy and social order, to use SillitoeFs phrases 4t consists in this account in the manner in >hich indi"iduals manage relations bet>een themsel"es 4n similar "ein, -eil closes his analysis of the tee system of ceremonial e.change in Tombema +nga >ith a paean to its role in connecting indi"idual persons to one another D*$&1b:)1'E: the tee for Tombema people and society is a model of and a model for their humanity Without the tee, there is no community, no sociability, no reason for people to congregate The mutual, reciprocal interests of the tee bind men into secure, cooperati"e partnerships of trust Without the tee, Tombema belie"e such relationships are impossible @ne has to understand that -eil subsumes under e.change relationships the >orA of production and the domestic economy: Lall production and e.change decisions ha"e the tee as a bacAdropL D*$&1b:%E, and 4 return to his arguments on this point in chapter 6 7e stresses that the tee is carried by indi"idual partnerships, and indeed is opposed to >arfare >hich mobili6es group beha"ior ) Since these indi"idual relationships are constituted by ties through >omen, and since production is, as he puts it, geared to e.tra, domestic e.change, >omen are in his account crucial participants in both production and e.change -eil purposely taAes >omenFs affairs as seriously as he does menFs ;ut his emphasis on >omenFs participation seems to incorporate an assumption, liAe SillitoeFs, that sociality is Dcollecti"eE sociability 7ence the tee is Lthe central institution of Tombema societyL D*$&1b:)0%E 4dentifying a Aey institutional bacAbone is itself a theoretical residue from older anthropological analyses of Fsocial structureF as the bony articulation of FlifeF and other processes 4t thus leads to a dichotomy, as became apparent in the pre"ious chapter, bet>een >hat is social structure and >hat is not A conseGuence of ha"ing identified a central institution, then, is that in order to pay attention to >omen as >ell as men, one is reGuired to sho> ho> >omen as >ell as men FparticipateF in this institution page36% Page 6& #onseGuently -eil must argue that >e should not be taAen in by group rhetoric, as he also argues that >e should not be taAen in by the Aind of dichotomous categori6ation into domestic and political domains as is found in societies such as 7agen D-eil *$%&E 4n order to bring to the fore the preeminence of >omen in Tombema +nga society, he states that the politics of indi"idual e.change partnerships ob"iates any such dichotomy, for politics penetrates e"ery domestic decision: Lthe political is inseparable from the pri"ateL D*$%&:)6&E ?aluable as this criticism is, it fails to broach the issue of >here and ho> Tombema, or any other 7ighlands people, deploy gender difference as constituti"e of other differences

Tombema say that t>o men Fcome togetherF or are FJoinedF in the tee by a >oman, that they base their relationship on a female linA, and that >hen it no longer e.ists, the incenti"e to maintain the relationship disappears This "ie> is, 4 thinA, a recognition that >omen alone can guarantee the integrity of men in tee dealings, and >ithout that guarantee, the relationship may flounder D*$&1b: *'0E Tombema say that t>o men come together linAed by a >oman; they do not say that t>o >omen so come together As he notes subseGuently, the chief channels for prestige Ldistinguish and ele"ate the names of men, not >omenL D*$&1b:**%E Quite aside from the respecti"e po>ers or influences that each se. possesses lies the une.amined nature of the opposition and e.clusions symboli6ed in the Tombema difference bet>een menFs and >omenFs acti"ities 7o>e"er unfortunate an analytic idiom, the image of FdomainsF captures part of a global categori6ation that Din the case of 7ighlands peopleE e.tends a difference bet>een the se.es to differences in their scope for social action Sho>ing that men and >omen both participate in political and in domestic acti"ity does not negate the gender categori6ation itself: it simply relocates its focus 4n the Tombema case, it seems rather clear that FmenF are e.change partners, >hile F>omenF guarantee or are in some sense a cause of their being so linAed We need to Ano> ho> FmenF and F>omenF are so categorically and so differently placed "is,P,"is each other 4f there has been a single ad"ance attributable to feminist anthropology, Gua anthropology, it has been in bypassing Guestions about the essentialism of se.ual identity and opening up an adJacent range of issues >idely Ano>n as the social and cultural construction of gender What is laid open to scrutiny is the relationship bet>een constructs of page36& Page 6$ maleness and femaleness This goes beyond considering ho> the e.periences of indi"idual persons are molded by cultural prescriptions about male and female beha"ior Where >hole areas of social life DFdomainsFE become the apparent concern of one or the other se., then their relationship or articulation must be in"estigated This position constitutes a significant critiGue of analyses that taAe the coe.istence of such different areas for granted Those dealing >ith the social or cultural construction of gender are not reGuired to taAe a decision as to the prior or deri"ed se.ing of the body, in terms of the debate briefly mentioned in the last chapter Their concern is rather >ith the relationship bet>een the "ery categories male and female The concern itself deri"es from specifically anthropological interest in elucidating the metaphoric basis of classification systems A presumption of social or cultural holism is thus combined >ith a demonstration of the plurality of interests at >orA 9et me gi"e a sense of this intert>ined history, >hich >ill put some of the obser"ations made in the pre"ious chapter in a rather different light At the same time, it >ill also tra"erse similar ground The feminist,anthropological critiGues about domestic and political domains >hich dominated the *$%'s originated in premises similar to those that informed the earlier se.,role model of gender identitytaAing the Frelationship bet>eenF male and female as the focus of inGuiry taAes these entities in turn as fi.ed points of reference 7o>e"er they are defined in respect to one another, the tasA is seen as connecting t>o terms or concepts that can also stand independently of that relationship FMaleF and FfemaleF become reference points for its elucidation, despite the interdependency of the cultural characteristics associated >ith each The strategy >as ine"itably to fall foul of the pre"ious accumulation of ethnographic data that interpreted maleness and femaleness as referring to >hat men and >omen are and do 4t also Joined >ith general anthropological thinAing of the time in its interest in models of society, in >hich one can discern the tension bet>een holistic and pluralistic premises about the nature of interrelations bet>een the se.es 4 >ish to dra> attention to t>o features in the social constructionist formulations, "ersions of some of the assumptions already encountered, and presaged in the citations from SillitoeFs and -eilFs >orAs @ne concerns the a.iomatic >ay in >hich the indi"idual, liAe the categories of male and female, is taAen for granted as an autonomous reference point Sociality is unco"ered in the in"estigation of relations bet>een indi"iduals, e"en as social and cultural constructions are unco"ered in page36$

Page %' the in"estigation of relations bet>een male and female Second, to see male and female attributes as reflecting menFs and >omenFs positions establishes a further parallel >ith the >ay in >hich the indi"idual is also presented, in that these suppositions rest on an intriguing presumption about the boundedness of such entities 4ndi"iduals are imagined to ha"e boundary problems similar to those that afflict FgroupsF, almost as though sociality consisted in substituting group boundaries for indi"idual ones 4f men, >omen and indi"iduals Gua indi"iduals are seen to be subJect to the Ainds of Fsociali6ationF processes sAetched in chapter 0, then they also appear to ha"e autonomous interests of their o>n that they must negotiate 4n the case of men and >omen each acts >ith respect to the opposite se., and in the case of indi"iduals each must maintain relations >ith other indi"iduals 4ndeed, the feminist,inspired concern >ith >omen as Fsocial actorsF, as persons in their o>n right, can be directly attributed in anthropological accounts of the period to the conceptuali6ation of male2female as the social or cultural construction of FmenF and F>omenF on the one hand and to the haunting eGuation of sociality >ith collecti"e life on the other ;oth >ere caught up in the arguments about public and domestic domains, and in Melanesian ethnography both belong to that same intert>ined, though not completely merged, history The FSocial #onstructionF @f Male And -emale Studies of gender symbolism o"er the last t>o decades ha"e been dominated by the concept of gender as a social or cultural, that is, FsymbolicF, construction What is being constructed is understood as se.,roles themsel"es, and as the e"eryday >orld >hich normali6es them as >ell as ideal or stereotypical images of relations bet>een the se.es 4n Melanesia, one might start the historical account >ith MeadFs D*$0(E and ;atesonFs D*$(& N*$0&OE >orAs They sa> cultures as "ariably determining >hat >as acceptable male or female beha"ior in men and >omen This >as the beginning of an e.plicit social construction theory, though the obJect of study remained the se.ing of personal identities 4t >as Mead >ho enunciated so clearly, in her o"er"ie> of /e> Guinea initiation rituals, that >hile >omen maAe human beings, only Lmen can maAe menL D*$(':*'0E Thus, the great problematic for her >as the relationship bet>een se.ual stereotypes and peopleFs personalities, and from this approach came an analytical "ocabulary of normalcy and page3%' Page %* de"iancy ;ateson focused on the >ay in >hich 4atmul culture promoted a con"entional ethos that affected the se.esF interaction >ith one another: each se. had its o>n ethos, e.perienced as a range of emotional responses /e"ertheless, his classification of types of relationshipcomplementary and symmetricaland his concern >ith the Fcultural logicF of pairing, opposition, and di"ergence, made modes of relating a theoretical problem As a category term car"ing out the study of male,female relations, FgenderF in its modern sense came to embrace more than the se. stereotyping that interested Mead The popularity of "arieties of structuralism >ithin anthropology generated techniGues for the decoding of symbols Se.ual symbolism could be understood not Just as stereotype or preferred personality but as metaphor 0 We ha"e seen ho> 8eadFs early papers connected the symbolism of inter,se.ual conflict to the demands for male solidarity, and that se.ual antagonism >as interpreted largely in beha"ioral terms, as a matter of relations bet>een the di"ergent situations of men and >omen Malefemale relations, in the phrase of the time, thus encompassed attitudes and stereotypes about the se.es, but it also broached the symbolism of community DFmaleFE life itself 4t is of a piece that in addition to its interest in solidarity and group structure, MeggittFs D*$61E article >as an e.ercise in symbolic analysis Dafter /eedhamE Meggitt laid out the relationship bet>een a series of terms by analogy to the underlying logic of male,female opposition FMale, female relationsF no> co"ered a symbolic uni"erse of polari6ed eGuations, a social classification, and >hen FgenderF gained currency, the constructions >ere grasped as FmetaphoricalF ones Dsee ;uchbinder and 8appaport *$%6:00; see also <elly *$%6; M Strathern *$%&E 8elations bet>een the se.es >ere images for the organi6ation of ideas about other things, about life,forces or general "alues #ategories constituted a social classification, and the modelling Din the term of the timesE of the relationship bet>een male and female >as there for decoding The concern >as >ith processes of signification and the relations bet>een terms -eminist theory of the *$%'s, as it entered anthropology, did not taAe these classifications at face "alue but further regarded the le.icon as part of the po>er positioning of the se.es in relation to each other 4t thus tooA as a.iomatic the reference of male2female symbolism to the affairs of men and >omen 4ts o>n critiGue addressed gender as an ideological construction and addressed the issue of >hose models the analytical models appropriate This critiGue >as particularly pertinent

page3%* Page %) >hen a di"ide bet>een public and pri"ate or bet>een politico,Jural and domestic domains became represented through a male2female polari6ation The pertinence of feminist theory lay in its implications for the definition of society as someho> first and foremost structured as the social >orld of men 4n ;ritain and the States these interests defined the emergence of a feminist anthropology through the publication of 'erceiving *omen DS Ardener *$%(E, *oman+ Culture+ and !ociety D8osaldo and 9amphere *$%1E, and &o#ard an "nthropology of *omen D8eiter *$%(E 1 Many of these collected essays illustrated the contemporary concern >ith models, and the bias of models, and began the debate on the uni"ersal nature of the dichotomy bet>een FdomesticF and FpublicF domains ( The spheres >ere presented both as demarcating domains of action and as corresponding to peopleFs e"aluation of the significance of menFs and >omenFs acti"ities ;y focusing on these constructs as embodying cultural e"aluations, it seemed possible to distinguish bet>een differently structured systems 4n some, men and >omen participate eGually in public and domestic matters; in others, boundaries must be crossed or sub"erted 8osaldo suggested that >omen gain FFpo>er and a sense of "alue >hen they are able to transcend domestic limits, either by entering the menFs >orld or by creating a society unto themsel"esL D*$%1:1*E With its implications for the study of Ainship and politics, 8osaldoFs >as a po>erful holistic formulation that seemed to allo> comparati"e analysis across a range of situations Gender thus >as taAen to comprise an indigenous model of duality, discriminating bet>een categories and constructs of all Ainds, often to asymmetrical effect Done of a pair "alued, the other denigratedE Such symbolic asymmetry seemed to resonate >ith percei"ed ineGualities bet>een the se.es At the same time, then, a dualism >as also identified bet>een their interests The ethnographer had to looA for dual models of the >orld, reflecting the differing perspecti"es of menFs and >omenFs li"es 6 This meant that the asymmetry could not be taAen for granted; it might >ell turn out to be a property of a dominant model, creating an ideological hierarchy of "alues 4t could re"eal an indigenous bias To a"oid replicating such bias, the ethnographerFs tasA had to rest on a dual approach of his or her o>n, both taAing into account the se.es as interest groups liAely to ha"e their o>n "isions of the >orld, and sho>ing up se.ual stereotyping for the ideology it >as The significance of the public2domestic debate >as deri"ed, in part at least, from this contemporary concern >ith male bias Dindigenously and as part of the page3%) Page %0 ethnographic accountE in the description of social structure DQuinn *$%%:*&0; Milton *$%$E That less than ten years on the debate should be dismissed as ha"ing outgro>n its usefulness, or as addressing Lanything more than an ideological distinction that often disguises more than it illuminatesL DAtAinson *$&):)0&E, is testimony to the scrutiny and theoretical F>orAF the capture of domains engendered What had been captured >as the interest,based dimension of cultural categories, and thus an internal pluralism Where men ha"e a special interest in seeing themsel"es as the authors of collecti"e life, the argument goes, then it also becomes their interest that the nature of this life be described through se.ual differentiation 4f >hat men do becomes public and "isible, a counterpart domestic domain becomes identifiable >ith a noncollecti"e and female realm 4t >as turning these categories to analytic use in describing menFs and >omenFs spheres of action that pro"ed troublesomethe e.tent to >hich >omen >ere made in"isible "ia this "ery categori6ation The debate foundered on the tautology of the association bet>een >omen and domesticity: domesticity could only be identified by the presence of >omen D7arris *$&*:61E % 4ndeed, feminist commentators complained about the >ay in >hich those >ho interpreted or incorporated into their accounts an e.planatory di"ision of this Aind ran together distinctions bet>een public2pri"ate, political2domestic, social2indi"idual De g , Tiffany *$%&; 8ogers *$%&; :anagisaAo *$%$; Sciama *$&*; :eatman *$&1E :et in terms of Western classifications, of course, these form coherent ideational sets The same is also true of the eGui"ocations themsel"es We might contrast the tension bet>een the holistic and pluralist critiGues in terms of their o>n DWesternE symbolic de"ices @n the one hand, the domains are interpreted for other cultures as their symbolic de"ice for the internal ordering of society, the male capacity for FgroupF beha"ior being set against the refractory indi"idualism of FfamilyF life symboli6ed as female D8osaldo *$&':0$1: LMale dominance seems to be an aspect of the organisation of collecti"e lifeLE @n the other hand, they may be taAen as re"ealing that in actuality men and >omen themsel"es constitute Fsocial

groupsF, each >ith its o>n spectrum of interests 4ndeed, the symbolic domains may cross,cut FrealF oppositions bet>een these groups D#ommenting that gender symbolism in 7agen male cult acti"ity should be "ie>ed as a discourse on the state of po>er relations, 7a>Ains refers to >omen as a group: LThe interdependence of male and female as e.pressed in the cult is thus an e.press rationali6a, page3%0 Page %1 tion, an orthodo. "ie>, of the state of po>er relations bet>een men and >omen the monopoly of po>erL D*$&1:)))E E bet>een t>o groups for

Although the debate might ha"e e.hausted itself, one of its highly ethnocentric moti"ations remains This >as an insistence, in the face of a freGuent cross,cultural association bet>een >omen and domesticity, that >omen should be treated in the anthropological account as full social actors & The eGuation >ith domesticity suggested that >ithout a degree of conscious effort then >omen might not be so considered At an early stage in the debate, 8osaldo located the problem in cultural e"aluation: 4 ha"e tried to relate uni"ersal asymmetries in the actual acti"ities and cultural e"aluations of men and >omen to a uni"ersal, structural opposition bet>een domestic and public spheres 4 ha"e also suggested that >omen seem to be oppressed or lacAing in "alue and status to the e.tent that they are confined to domestic acti"ities, cut off from other >omen and from the social #orld of men Nmy emphasisO D*$%1:1*E 4nteresting in this formulation is the perception noted by 9a -ontaine D*$&*E: the possibility of classifying some areas of life as Fmore socialF >ith respect to others that are Fless socialF Dcf @rtner *$%1E $ #ontinuing insistence by feminist anthropologists that >omen appear as social actors in their accounts responds to a similar tension 4t is an important political tenet of scholarly practice; at the same time, the tension must also be understood as belonging to the anthropological interest in models of FsocietyF The point is >orth comment The accounts of the *$%'s treated the public2domestic di"ide as a tool for analytical discrimination >ith a uni"ersali6ing potential What had been ad"anced at a pre"ious stage of anthropological theory*' as an interpretation of the manner in >hich Jural authority is constructed, and the relationship of politico,Jural citi6enship to authority >ithin domestic groups, appeared analogous to the manner in >hich men claimed to be responsible for FsocietyF -or feminist commentators, the politico,Jural domain >as the place >here social "alues >ere promulgated, from >hich social po>er >as e.ercised As >e ha"e seen, criticism Das in -eilFs *$%& articleE >as also made of those >ho adopted the essentially normati"e di"ision implied in such ideas as an analytical one 4t >as regarded as an ideological instantiation, in so far as the "ery modelling of a di"ide perpetuates a claim, "i6 that certain areas of social life necessarily subsume and thus regulate other areas, >hich are conseGuently characteri6ed as reGuiring regulation or as not ha"ing in, page3%1 Page %( dependent interests of their o>n This critiGue led to attempts to re>rite a political dimension into domesticity itself 4ndeed, it >as rapidly accepted that the study of FpoliticsF should be separated from the study of FpublicF life As a recent summary puts it, /o longer does it seem useful to eGuate politics >ith FpublicF institutions, statuses, and social groups pre"iously considered as a predominantly male FdomainF; instead, politics should be seen as a system of po>er relationships and "alue hierarchies, >hich necessarily includes both >omen and men When male acti"ities, groups, and ties are studied it must be recogni6ed that these are gender,marAed phenomena and do not constitute the FhumanF social uni"erse DTsing and :anagisaAo *$&0:(*)E That there >as reason to Guestion these constructs arose from the parallel conflation of domesticity >ith the affairs of >omen 4n so far as the domestic domain >as interpreted as in>ard,looAing and remo"ed from the >ider society, so too, it >as obJected, >ere >omen regarded by prefeminist ethnographers 4n their critiGues, feminist anthropologists remain di"ided among themsel"es 4n some cases they are concerned to analy6e ho> these cultural constructs >orA FreallyF to contain >omen; in others to sho> the inappropriateness of mapping >hat they claim are Western,deri"ed concepts onto systems that do not discriminate along these lines +"en >here it is regarded as analytically appropriate, the fact of so organi6ing

social life to the e.clusion of >omen and to their domestic containment is interpreted as an instrument of po>er on menFs part The construction of po>er, it is argued, depends on promoting "alues that underline the a.iomatic nature of the di"ision The di"ide thus incorporates a partisan self,description, a particular representation of society This may be understood either on the holistic premise that one is dealing >ith a coherent ideological set that confines >omen to a particular position or on the pluralistic premise that >omen are not really to be encompassed by such categori6ation; e"idence for their models of the >orld ha"e to be found else>here These eGui"ocations >ere in the end dominated by an idea feminist anthropologists shared >ith other anthropologists of the timethe assumption that symbolic strategies such as domaining afforded a model of FsocietyF :eatman regards this assumption as intrinsic to modern social science: ;ecause the NWesternO gender ascription of the differentiation of public and domestic socialities operates to maAe these socialities appear not as a difference >ithin the same Aind of life, but as a difference of Aind, bet>een page3%( Page %6 different types of life, the eGuation of FsocietyF >ith public sociality tends to e.clude domestic sociality from FsocietyF D*$&1:*0(E The anthropological compulsion to identify >hat is crucially FsocialF in indigenous representations assumes that the indigenous models promote a split bet>een a society so percei"ed and elements that might be regarded as asocial, antisocial, subsocial -or the inherently plural character of Western images of society under>rites the identification of collecti"e life and the public2political >orld of men such that a domain metaphorically categori6ed as male is taAen to re"eal men eGuating themsel"es >ith society tout court 4n this Western "ie> a FmaleF domain must speaA to menFs interests And a domain concei"ed as public and collecti"e in character is assumed to oppose indi"iduating, noncollecti"e areas of life as society opposes the indi"idual When such domaining acti"ity is encountered in non,Western gender symbolism, it is easy to imagine that it speaAs to similar concerns 4nstead of arguing it a>ay, 4 suggest it >ill be important to the Melanesian case to in"estigate the distincti"e nature of domestic sociality, that is, to taAe seriously the distincti"eness culturally attributed to it @ne might thereby a"oid doing "iolence to indigenous differentiations The important aspect of the debate to pursue, then, is the reali6ation that boundedness bet>een areas of actionpri"ate set off against public affairsis itself an image D9a -ontaine *$&*E This image creates a "alue difference bet>een types of action Where the "alues are mapped, as they appear to be, onto a distinction bet>een things to do >ith men and to do >ith >omen, an ideational boundary bet>een the se.es becomes the medium through >hich the possibility of action itself is presented Models @f Social 9ifeK 4 turn briefly to three studies carried out in the *$%'s, t>o from the Western and the +astern 7ighlands >ith a third illuminating study dra>n from right outside this area They all re"eal a boundary that appears to run contrary to e.pectations 4t is not men >ho emerge as specifically FsocialF in their orientations but >omen The ethnographers >ho ha"e documented these cases ha"e made a point of consid, KThese accounts are adapted from material 4 ha"e presented else>here: the 7agen case from @F;rien and Tiffany D*$&1E; the 5aulo case from 7irschon D*$&1E page3%6 Page %% ering >omenFs perspecti"es; ho>e"er, these are not simply negati"e instances @n the contrary, the cases are dra>n from societies Dincluding 7agenE >hose traditional FpublicF institutions >ere male,dominated ;ut changes that ha"e been taAing place in these societies in recent years are re"ealing The spread of >age labor and cash crops in Melanesia has had an effect upon subsistence >orA ;y and large, horticultural acti"ities continue intact; yet >ith men becoming in"ol"ed in migrant labor or FbusinessF of one Aind or another, >omen are more prominently concerned >ith the subsistence base 4n this conte.t they come to be associated >ith a range of public "alues As men mo"e into a >orld opened up by colonial

and postcolonial trade and politics, >omen become "isible reminders of enduring norms of social conduct -or all three instances, >omenFs past acti"ities >ere confined, by contrast >ith the >ider acti"ities of men that set the definition of public life 4t looAs almost as though >omen no> come to stand for FsocietyF itself, as it appears in the contemporary >orld 7o>e"er, the Guestion sho>s up the construct of society for >hat it is: an anthropological eGuation bet>een collecti"e acti"ities and the society of Western discourse What is re"ealing about these ethnographic e.amples is the challenge that they offer not only to an association bet>een FsocialF "alues and public, collecti"e acti"ity but to the characteri6ation of domesticity ,nternal migrants: Hagen The system of ceremonial e.change bet>een political groups, in"ol"ing each man in a >ide net>orA of e.change partners, has e.panded and escalated in 7agen since contact, absorbing moneti6ation and >ith the then D*$%'sE abeyance of >arfare being a focus for menFs public displays MenFs collecti"e endea"ors continue to be highly "alued as such 4n dra>ing a contrast bet>een ceremonial e.change and things concerning household production, men hierarchi6e >hat in other situations they "alue eGually Thus they may claim that reno>n and prestige are to be found only among men in the sphere of public life, concretely presented as a matter of men being prestigious, >omen rubbish MenFs prestige comes from their collecti"e acti"ity, >hich includes tra"elling to e.change partners and dra>ing in >ealth from e.otic places, >hereas >omen are confined to a restricting domesticity, to Fthe houseF Production is not publicly "alued in this conte.t: certainly it is not presented rhetorically as the basis for building prestige And men constantly use the contrast bet>een male and female as a metaphor for the difference Thus men encourage one another not to page3%% Page %& beha"e liAe >omen but to in"est in public life WomenFs e.clusion from this sphere is also read as a Aind of irresponsibility D>hich it >ould be if it >ere men >ithdra>ing themsel"esE They are portrayed in dogma as >ay>ard, capricious, >ith small, pri"ate concerns at heart 4n other situations, men also maAe positi"e e"aluations of producti"e >orA, including their o>n and >omenFs >orA ;ut >hen men state that >omen are Fstrong thingsF on >hom they depend, this acAno>ledgment is muffled by all their other assertions that men alone are strong because of their public presence 4t is, therefore, illuminating to note >hat happens >hen men remo"e themsel"es from the arena of local politics and ceremonial e.change 7ageners, mostly young and male, ha"e been migrating to the coast for some years Dsee M Strathern *$%(E !rban migrants recreate an adolescent culture: they a"oid ceremoniali6ing public occasions; they do>nplay oratory, the supreme political art; and they reJect any serious application among themsel"es of the epithets, FprestigefulF and FrubbishF 4n remo"ing themsel"es from the >orld of politics they may JoAingly say they are Fall rubbishF by contrast >ith people at home ;ut they >ould ne"er use the image freGuently used of rubbish men at home, that they are FliAe >omenF To those left at home, the absent migrants sho> much of the irresponsibility said to typify female beha"ior :et in terms of the frame>orA crucial to such e"aluations, migrants confound other aspects of femaleness: far from being confined to the house, they are mobile and free :et mobility is pri6ed only >hen it is to a purpose @stensibly the migrant tra"els to gain money; it is >hen he fails to return or to send money bacA home that AinsfolA start to label him rubbish 9iAe the migrants themsel"es, ho>e"er, they do not resort to male,female metaphors People at home continue to Judge migrantsF beha"ior in terms of prestige, but they too abandon female2male idioms The reason, 4 suggest, is that >ith the passing of time, the most crucial issue becomes mutuality 8elati"es become increasingly restless as the optimum moment for the youthFs marriage comes and goes, and they are unable to discharge their obligations This feeling is matched by concern at the absenteeFs lacA of feeling for them, the inadeGuacy of the gifts he sends 4nterdependence is gone, and its restoration emerges as the first need 4nterdependence may be thought of in terms of reciprocity embodied first and foremost in successful domestic relations -or their part, if migrants de,politici6e their urban affairs, they also de,domestici6e them They ignore the passing of time >hich at home page3%& Page %$ turns a fecAless adolescent into a responsible adult And >here a contrast bet>een male and female is not used to e"aluate public and non,public orientations, the female comes to stand for something Guite different To the migrant, >omensisters, mothers, potential >i"esrepresent adulthood and its demands, social responsibility, the return to relationships formed through reciprocity and interdependence

:ouths at home enJoy considerable freedom Most migrants are unmarried or only ne>ly >ed and continue to thinA of themsel"es as untrammelled by social obligations They constantly remind one another that they are free to do >hat they liAe Some say they ran a>ay from home to escape marriage, for the idea of matrimony is bound up >ith a manFs feelings to>ards his elders, foreshado>ing an e.plicit interdependence >ith the >oman >ho >ill be his >ife Much more potently than other 7agen men, >omen "isitors >ho tra"el to to>n or female relati"es >ho send messages, remind the migrants of the binding nature of relationships they pretend to ha"e shaAen off 4ndeed, migrants become e.cessi"ely embarrassed by the presence of female "isitors, apologi6e >hen they gi"e them gifts, and may e.press bad feelings at ha"ing abandoned their mother or sister WomenFs reGuests lead them bacA into the responsibilities they ha"e half discarded 7ere, then, >e ha"e >omen associated >ith responsibility, >ith social obligation, as people >ho direct the youthsF thoughts not only to>ards themsel"es but to>ards home society in general 3verseas migrants: anuatu +.hortations to participate in public acti"ities or to meet domestic obligations are appeals to action They do not also presuppose a sense of a particularly F7agenF >ay of doing things The ne.t e.ample, ho>e"er, re"eals an ethnic,liAe modelling of a culture or society as a holistic entity, conceptuali6ed through a contrast bet>een places that adhere to FcustomF and those that follo> ne> >ays 4t comes from a region that has e.perienced migration for a much longer period and on a much larger scale than is true of 7agen The Sa,speaAers of Pentecost 4sland in the ?anuatu archipelago inhabit an area that has Ano>n +uropean influence since the *&%'s; Pentecost had its o>n first ethnographer in *$*6 ?illagers no>adays di"ide themsel"es into custom D.astomE and into school Ds.ulE "illages, signalling their orientation to the no> postcolonial >orld The polari6ation is clearly a politici6ed one and affects a range of acti"itiessubsistence patterns, ceremony, Ano>ledge, dressso the alternati"es are total Sa,speaAers percei"e a connection bet>een reliance on subsistence page3%$ Page &' production and the performance of traditional ceremonies in the same >ay as securing money by cash cropping or >age labor and diminishing traditional ritual by substituting #hristian >orship are also held to go together 4n appearance and habit, persons are identified >ith one social order or the other =olly, on >hose account 4 dra>, >orAed in a .astom "illage ** The ?anuatuans here contrast themsel"es >ith +uropeans +uropeans are regarded as floaters, liAe drift>ood, stringy and flabby because they ha"e no enduring relation to the earth but are compelled to mo"e about in search of money ?anuatuans describe themsel"es as belonging to ples Dha"ing a homeE, rooted to the earth, and their persons in self,e"ident good health, for they are strong by producing, e.changing, and eating their o>n food Kastom does not Just depict tradition, then, but a moral and material order +nduring sociality is traditionally symboli6ed in things to do >ith men Thus the rootedness they see as characteristic of their >hole society is modelled in the rootedness of men 8ights to land are held by male agnatic descendants of a founding ancestor L9and is not so much o>ned as part of oneFs human substance,L the Lprecondition of human cultureL D=olly *$&*:)6$E Attachment to land is con"eyed in the ;islama DPidginE term man ples DFman placeFE The form of the generic man resonates >ith the fact that men >ho are typified as ha"ing enduring rights to the land also relate to it collecti"ely Sa gro> t>o main crops, taro and long yams Taro is culti"ated continuously, production being by the household; all household members, male and female, may cooperate to gro> it There is no rigid di"ision of labor: if necessary, a person could complete the >hole taro culti"ation on his or her o>n ;ut >ith yams it is "ery different The seasonal gro>ing of yams is part of a male cult, and they are eaten as sacred food 7ere there is an e.plicit di"ision of labor bet>een the se.es, menFs and >omenFs deliberate cooperation being liAened to se.ual intercourse, an image in >hich the yam is eGuated >ith man or >ith penis :am culti"ation is communaloften entire "illages >orA togetherand in this collecti"e >orA men ha"e a dominating role They organi6e the labor, possess the magic, and it is in their name that yams are circulated as gifts in e.change 4n short, the organi6ation of yam production and distribution is in the hands of men 4n fact, they control all public prestations of food 4n the process, =olly reports, >omenFs >orA is systematically de"alued Men appropriate the yams Dand pigsE, treating them as their o>n rather than as Lshared creationsL D=olly, in page3&'

Page &* pressE As >ith a number of similar cases reported by 8osaldo D*$%1: 010(E, the manner in >hich menFs and >omenFs acti"ities are allocated establishes a distinction bet>een a collecti"e public life focused on male cult and male e.change and the pri"ate life of the Joint household Although Sa in the .astom "illages maintain an ideological opposition bet>een themsel"es and the follo>ers of +uropean >ays, this does not mean that they ignore e"erything +uropean They turn +uropean things to their o>n ends rather than seeA to encompass +uropean ends; in other >ords they ?anuati6e things deri"ed from the +uropean >orld rather than +uropeani6e themsel"es Sa ha"e been synchroni6ing labor migration >ith yam production for the fifty years that men ha"e been lea"ing the island to >orA on plantations else>here Men go off in groups, rarely alone because lea"ing the island to >orA abroad in"ol"es risAs, especially to menFs health An important element in the linA bet>een people and the land is the food they eat; indeed status differences bet>een social categories are marAed by rules of commensality Taro, for instance, is regarded as a female food and is specifically fed to a ne>born baby, >hereas yams are the food fed to boys at circumcision to signify their masculinity There is thus an intimate eGuation bet>een the food one eats and oneFs bodily and social state, as there is >ith the circumstance of eating *) and the classification of foods >ith parts of the human body The contrast >ith +uropeans is made in terms of the >ay lifestyles, including the Aind of relationship in"ol"ed in the production of food, are e"inced in body substance :et migrant laborers ha"e to subsist on imported rice, tinned fish, and corned beef Men are thought to be >eaAened by this e.ogenous food ;ut the >eaAening effect is apparently limited to the personal body Dthat can be replenished in the yam har"estE; they do not see themsel"es as also compromising traditional society, the .astom through >hich their "illage defines itself And ho> can they sustain the parado. of mo"ing a>ay liAe +uropeans and eating foreign food >hen .astom is founded on rootedness to landM ;y ha"ing >omen stand for rootednessM =olly tells us that men acti"ely discourage and pre"ent >omen from seeAing migrant >orA They thus inhibit >omenFs contact >ith outsiders This action sustains claims to male dominance Dmen are regarded as more able to >ithstand dangers than >omenE; and men appropriate access to the outside >orld Just as they do a leading role in ritual and e.change :et there may >ell be a further dynamic to the relation bet>een gender and the conceptuali6ation of traditional society Thus in the conte.t of male migration, not in others, >omen at home can repre, page3&* Page &) sent the enduring relationship to land that is held to characteri6e a .astom >ay of life as a >hole This possibility perhaps lies behind the no"el parado. noted by the ethnographer that the ideological commitment to .astom and to .astom food has become predicated on >omen: FFin the end, the tenacity and rootedness of man ples depends on the tenacity and rootedness of #oman plesL Din pressE The modelling of a social life on notions of male rootedness or the mobility that has displaced it, and on their superior organi6ational sAills, could be taAen as an ideological set fashioned by men to further their o>n interests, including the domination of >omen 4ndeed, in striAing comparison >ith ;lochFs Din pressE description of circumcision among the Merina of Madagascar, =olly Din pressE suggests that in the manner in >hich the contrast bet>een taro and yams is engineered, these tubers do not merely marA difference bet>een the se.es but con"ey the mastery of men o"er >omen and the encompassment of female by male symbols @r one could argue that the differentiated spheres of male and female acti"ity afford a frame>orA for the conceptuali6ation of dual processes in social life 4n truth, these are not necessarily alternati"e approaches: the latter models moti"e, as >ell as Justification, for domination 4 return no> to the +astern 7ighlands of Papua /e> Guinea >here, as >e sa>, male domination is franAly asserted in the interests of promoting public benefits 0usiness: (aulo +astern 7ighlands male cults >ere described in the last chapter as asserting masculine superiority They not only promoted social solidarityon the single se. model of male cohesion in the face of female threatbut >ere, according to the ethnographic reports, an instrument of domination /umerous constraints >ere put on >omenFs beha"ior in the name of menFs "arious cults ;ut the cults ha"e since disappeared, as has >arfare in its traditional form What effect has this disappearance had for menFs proclaimed domination o"er >omenM 8ead D*$&1E suggests that gi"ing up the cults and the symbols of male community Dthe flutesE has released men as >ell as >omen, that men in the old days >ere traumati6ed by their painful initiation into manhood, and that the present regime is >elcomed >ith relief Men ha"e also abandoned their fears of biological inferiority: they are no longer afraid of female pollution and no longer attribute superior physiological

po>ers to >omen Although they still control the basic sources of production, interpersonal relations are reported to be freer and easier page3&) Page &0 Men still sustain, ho>e"er, a distincti"e domain for themsel"es @"er this period, modern business enterprises ha"e de"eloped >ith great "igor, and there is no doubt that it is men >ho are dominant in this sphere :et although they continue to rely on >omenFs domestic labor, it is hard to see their dominance as geared simply to>ard the domination of >omen The in"ol"ement of +astern 7ighlands men in de"elopment proJects has to be interpreted more generally as a manifestation of their "isible agency They are seen to be acti"e in the ne> >orld 4t is interesting, therefore, to record the emergence of a Aind of FbusinessF run by >omen, on a smaller scale than menFs but often >ith male assistance for sAilled >orA MenFs commercial in"ol"ement has produced a response from >omen not to participate directly in menFs enterprises but to match >hat they see men doing The +astern 7ighlands are entering a phase of incipient stratification 5e"elopment proJects ha"e created a local elite, and >hat began as collecti"e commercial enterprises by groups of clansmen ha"e become in the last decade the empires of indi"idual men To some e.tent, these empires are built on a traditional subsistence base >here >omenFs >orA is still "ery significant These male proJects are also, it >ould seem, de"oid of much ritual content 4ndeed, it is arguable that >hen the male cults >ere abandoned, they did not simply remo"e menFs fears of >omen and menFs domination of them: they also remo"ed certain a"enues to collecti"e life and to social and physical regeneration ;reathe more easily >omen mightthe e.traordinary thing is that >omen ha"e taAen up the ritual slacA They ha"e created ne> rituals of regeneration And this they see themsel"es doing in the name of general public >elfare, since at the center of their endea"or lies an eGuation bet>een nurture and the production of money Money is no> essential to the reproduction of life, Se.ton argues, and >omen ha"e made themsel"es the ritual nurturers of it Se.ton has described such >omenFs rituals for the 5aulo area in a northern region of +astern 7ighlands *0 The maJor source of cash is the locally gro>n coffee Partly in response to menFs control of cash at the household le"el, >omen here ha"e de"eloped their o>n sa"ings and credit system, >ith features deliberately adopted from >hat is Ano>n of banAing procedure The system is called in Pidgin +nglish #o. meri DF>omenFs >orA2enterpriseFE Groups dra>n from the co,resident lineage >i"es of a "illage protect their sa"ings from the depradations of their husbands by banAing them collecti"ely and using the capital for business "entures and for lending to similar >omenFs groups The or, page3&0 Page &1 gani6ation of a #o. meri group is based on a pree.isting collecti"ity Dthe >i"es of patrilineage matesE that cooperates on other occasions also +stablished groups sponsor FdaughterF groups in other "illages by maAing them loans that are e"entually repaid >hen the latter become FmothersF themsel"es A complementary set of symbols turns on affinity, so that mothers and daughters also see themsel"es as bride,gi"ers and bride, recei"ers to each other, the bride being the #o. meri e.pertise itself An important point to be dra>n from Se.tonFs analysis concerns the idioms in terms of >hich this acti"ity is concei"ed Women emphasi6e the collecting together and sa"ing of >ealth but not as a form of gift e.change in the ordinary sense; instead, debtors and creditors may remain unAno>n personally to one another Women regard themsel"es as safeguarding their cash incomes, >hile men are cast into the role of spendthrifts, concerned only >ith indi"idual goals and short,term consumption *1 5espite competiti"e demands on household income, men respond to the >omenFs efforts; many husbands respect >i"esF claims to dispose of some of the cash crop income and support the groups >ith e.pert ad"ice, acting as booAAeepers and trucA dri"ers A man DFchairmanFE may also act as a groupFs spoAesman on public occasions The focus of such occasions, ho>e"er, is the >omenFs transactions, and money is gi"en and recei"ed in their name Although some >omenFs groups disintegrate in the face of male disappro"al, Se.ton D*$&):*$'E reports that after one >omenFs ceremony in >hich thousands of participants and thousands of dollars >ere mobili6ed, men of one clan >ere so impressed that they urged all their clan >i"es to Join the mo"ement -rom time to time in such ceremonies, a group calls in its loans, and >ith the accumulated capital may purchase >holesale trade stores to supply small local trade stores or trucAs licensed to carry passengers

These >omen sa"e and in"est considerable sums of money, then, through operations staged from time to time on a public scale The concept of nurture is central to this organi6ation +ach ne> group stands as daughter to the mother DorahoE sponsor 4n #o. meri mothers gi"e loans to maAe the >orA of their daughters gro>, and the transactions are accompanied by birth and marriage rituals Se.ton gi"es the follo>ing account: As a mother cares for her child, so does an o>ner looA after her property; as a child gro>s, so ideally does property Pigs gro> and reproduce; coffee trees mature and bear fruit; money is in"ested to earn a profit ;y the use page3&1 Page &( of the term oraho DFmother, o>nerFE *o. Meri >omen not only base their relations >ith other groups on ficti"e maternal ties but also claim control of money by describing themsel"es as its Fo>nersF D*$&):*%0E The o>nership e.ercised by mothers is a special Aind, >ith parthenogenetic o"ertones reminiscent of GillisonFs description of the Gimi far to the south There Lthe "igour and fruition of all nurtured life is belie"ed to depend upon e.clusi"e attachment to, or symbolic incorporation by, indi"idual female caretaAersL D*$&':*1%E The identification bet>een the nurtured thing and its maternal source leads to Gimi men both separating themsel"es from the female body and sustaining the depiction of >omen as cannibals >ho >ill en"elop them Possibly the attitude of 5aulo men to>ards these in"estment associations re"ol"es around a similar tension bet>een e.tracting the products of nurture and acti"ely encouraging >omenFs continuing nurturant role Since money in"ested is seen to gro>, it is appropriate that >omen, promoters of gro>th, should see themsel"es as nourishing and guarding their money that is both e"idence of their >orA and part of the producti"ity of the lineage Se.ton >rites: 4n rituals liAe the symbolic marriage ceremonies *o. Meri >omen claim responsibility for the communal >elfare An accepted interpretation of traditional male cult acti"ities in the 7ighlands is that they enable men to taAe on symbolic responsibility for the fertility of >omen, crops and pigs, and for the >ell,being of the human and animal populations 4n the 5aulo region male cults ha"e not been practised for some time 4t is of maJor importance that >omen ha"e de"eloped *o. Meri rituals in >hich they symbolically shoulder the burden of insuring the FfertilityF or reproduction of money >hich has become a reGuisite Das a maJor component of bride>ealthE for the reproduction of society D*$&):*$%E This is no narro>ly concei"ed image of maternity 4n the conte.t of menFs >ithdra>al from collecti"e rites, 5aulo >omen ha"e taAen o"er the modelling of a producti"e, public life, on the >hole >ith menFs support 4mportant to this promotion is the e.ploitation of single se. ties, the all,female character of the internal rituals At the same time, the particularity of the integrati"e idiomsmother2daughter ties across groupsindicates that these >omen are not simply imitating menFs rites; they are dra>ing on other symbolic sources for the representation of social >elfare and producti"ity ;y recreating the rituals of marriage and bride>ealth, Se.ton argues, #o. meri >omen reaffirm that >omen are the source of >ealth More than this, they gi"e birth >ithout assistance; they Lcreate and reproduce society by themsel"esL D*$&):*$%E page3&( Page &6 WarryFs D*$&(E account of similar rituals in the nearby #hua"e area emphasi6es the potentially sub"ersi"e character of these claims WomenFs fabricated transactions do not sociologically replicate the structure of traditional e.changes bet>een Ain and affines; the ficti"e relationships created among >omen often linA strangers, and actually disrupt the interpersonal net>orAs men sustain *( <in,based prestations re"ol"ing around births, marriages, and deaths >ere formerly channelled through >hat Warry calls menFs corporate and competiti"e efforts, an engagement of their group identity The ne> >omenFs acti"ities do not respect these boundaries @n the contrary, #hua"e >omenFs complaints about menFs >astefulness include male in"estment in ceremonial e.change acti"ities that promote the clan or lineage prestige Women construct a ne> collecti"e dimension to their Fgro>ingF acti"ities 4n their creation of female to female ties, they endorse collecti"ity but challenge the group formation on >hich menFs collecti"e acti"ity >as based *6

Social Actors @ne Guestion presents itself: is it simply that a boundary bet>een public and pri"ate or political and domestic domains has been redra>nM 4n each case, is it menFs encounter >ith the encompassing >orld of Fde"elopmentF and commerce that has led to >omen taAing on the "alues of FtraditionalF lifeM Perhaps the >hole of traditional society thus becomes encapsulated, its central "alues represented by the category of persons traditionally encapsulated by menFs collecti"e efforts ;ut if this is so, there are some interesting Gualifications to be made Most important perhaps is the highly conte.tuali6ed nature of >omenFs association >ith social responsibility, rootedness, or ritual regeneration 4ndeed, in the first t>o studies, the association appears a matter of situational rhetoric made e.plicit only in certain circumstances /or is it true that the >hole of Ftraditional societyF is conceptually located in an e.ternal >orld liAe a domestic as opposed to a public domain MenFs o>n e.ternal relations do not necessarily pro"ide scope analogous to the dominating part they played in home politics @n the contrary, local political action remains a largely male domain -or all the public, cultural, collecti"e nature of >omenFs ne> acti"ities, in none of the cases here do they also come to signify acti"e political engagement, neither in the sense of promoting the solidary interests of groups in confrontation >ith one another nor in e.clusi"e claims to the a"enues of prestige page3&6 Page &% Western spatial idioms that depict a public2domestic di"ide in terms of geomorphic e.ternal and internal orientations >ould be misleading if one used them to suggest that "alues internal to indigenous society >ere no> someho> set off against those of the e.ternal >orld 4ndigenous politics certainly ha"e not been domesticated in this >ay; on the contrary, men see their acti"ities here and in the e.ternal >orld as continuous e"idence of their public efficacy 7agen >omen may be regarded by migrants in to>n as the repositories of all social obligation, but that does not mean that at home they are more prominent The ?anuatu >omen on Pentecost might stand for rootedness in relation to menFs going a>ay, but that does not mean they actually taAe o"er menFs ceremonial life The +astern 7ighlands >omen may mount collecti"e rituals of regeneration but that does not mean they ha"e shifted the basic structure of control o"er household resources 4 say ne> acti"ities, but >hat is ne> in these accounts is the >ay in >hich a certain Aind of sociality becomes "isible What is made "isible is that special sociality characteristic of domestic Ain relations This generali6ation holds across the differences in the three cases 7agen >omen embody FpublicF "alues in so far as the responsibilities and duties of >hich they remind the migrants recei"e general acAno>ledgment and are openly recogni6ed They are not Fpri"ateF "alues in any sense :et at the same time these are not "alues related to concerted, collecti"e action but are embedded >ithin the interdependencies of close Ainship relations -rom menFs point of "ie>, relations >ith >omen stand for particularistic cross,se. ties, including domestic relations >ith other men *% @n Pentecost, it is arguable that a holistic model of both FsocietyF or FcultureF is being built; not only does .astom DcultureE comprise habitual >ays of doing things, but certain producti"e relations internal to the community are seen to uphold a general sociality by >hich Sa,speaAers identify themsel"es This holism seems to be a specific ethnic artifact: =olly describes .astom as a strategy for responding to, modifying, and sometimes resisting +uropean FcustomF 4n 5aulo, >omen are in"ol"ed in concerted acti"ities, at certain points pri"ate Dinternal to themsel"esE and at other points public Dbrought into the openE but throughout of an emphatically collecti"e nature The all,female ties parallel all,male ties, in other conte.ts At the same time, the crucial relations bet>een #o. meri groups are modelled on interpersonal Ainship among >omen The fully social nature of >omenFs in"ol"ement in local affairs is made "isible :et these formulae do not obliterate differentiation be, page3&% Page && t>een menFs and >omenFs acti"ities Women come to occupy a public space but still do so in contradistinction to men The resultant di"ide may not be satisfactorily matched >ith all that is connoted by the Western formula of public2domestic domains and its "ariants; but that reali6ation does not taAe a>ay the di"isions that e.ist in indigenous life At the same time, the di"isions cannot possibly be construed by the outsider in such a >ay as to suggest that Melanesians associate one se. >ith sociality and the other >ith some lacA in this regard #hapter 0 Gueried the description of 7ighlands menFs attitudes that suggested these

men sa> boys as incomplete in their biology; the corollary of this Western,deri"ed suggestion that >omen completely endo>ed by nature must someho> al>ays be seen as socially incomplete does not follo> either The public2domestic issue has figured so large in the debate taAen up by Western anthropologists interested in gender relations because of the e.tent to >hich apparently similar e"aluations are encountered in the li"es of other people All three cases here pro"ide a patent disJunction bet>een menFs and >omenFs acti"ities ;ut 4 ha"e been arguing that >hat must be e.amined is the form of the disJunction not only the fact of it There >as e"er only a limited point to asAing if >omen FreallyF are confined to a domestic sphere, a strategy that inspects the terms of a dichotomy and ignores the relation Perhaps these cases can assist in understanding the further general problem, that so often the symboli6ed acti"ities of >omen appear to be focused on physiological reproduction or on in"ol"ement in household pro"isioning, to the e.tent that these appear to constitute female domains 4s not domestic sociality still a diminished socialityM The Guestion of households in"ites return to the 7agen materials, for it seems the >eaAest 4t looAs as though >omen simply remind migrants of their limited FfamilyF duties :et if this appears derogatory from a Western "ie>point, it is because of Western assumptions concerning domesticity At their base is the notion that domesticity maAes >omen less than full persons, so that they do not Gualify as proper e.emplars of social actors Hagen domesticity1 Within Western society, it is possible to concei"e of certain categories of persons being rather less than persons 4n an early paper, @rtner thus suggests that >omen appear closer to nature than men in societies >here they are associated >ith children >ho must be mo"ed from La less than fully human stateL D*$%1:%&E to full human, page3&& Page &$ ity through the offices of men *& The acAno>ledgment of reproducti"e po>er might compensate for lacA of cultural creati"ity, but domesticity confines >omen to a lo> order of social integration Whether or not such formulations can be found in the thought systems of other cultures, they certainly are in our o>n Western >omen run the danger of appearing as less than full social persons, either because their creati"ity is in natural rather than cultural matters or because they belong to the narro>er >orld of the domestic group rather than the >ider FsocialF >orld of public affairs We entertain the idea of incomplete social orientation, insofar as Western notions about personhood e"oAe ideas about e"olution Dsee chap *E 4ndustry and culture are concei"ed of as a breaA a>ay from nature and suppose domination o"er it Within these terms, to be a full person one must be culturally creati"e Such notions are also set >ithin a politico,economic formation that assigns autonomy to the >orAplace, to a public sphere a>ay from the infantili6ing home At home, the non>age earner is dependent upon the >age earner, e"en as the >hole household depends for subsistence upon institutions outside it To be adult, one must breaA out of the domestic circle The 7agen "ie> of the person, by contrast, does not reGuire that a child be trained into social adulthood from some presocial state nor postulate that each of us repeats the original domestication of humanity in the need to deal >ith elements of a precultural nature Society is not a set of controls o"er and against the indi"idual; human achie"ements do not culminate in culture And to >hate"er e.tent female domesticity in 7agen symboli6es affairs opposed to the collecti"e interests of men, it does not thereby entail the further denigration that >omen are less than adult -or >omenFs identity as persons does not ha"e to rest on proof that they are po>erful in some domain created by themsel"es nor in an ability to breaA free from domestic confines constructed by men The 7agen denigration of domesticity is located >ithin a specific e"aluation; only >ith respect to acti"ities that lead to prestige are things Fof the houseF rubbish That female concerns are thus denigrated does not touch on >omenFs stature as social persons 7agen >omen e.ert an influence more limited in range than men; at times they are forced into humiliating positions of po>erlessness; they are Fpolitical minorsF DM Strathern *$%):)$0E :et it is also true that >omen are credited >ith >ill, "olition, and the capacity to put things into a social perspecti"e +lse>here 4 ha"e glossed these as autonomy, in the sense that the self and its interests are acAno>ledged page3&$ Page $'

reference points for action 7agen >omen are al>ays held responsible for their actions, and it >ould be inappropriate to conceptuali6e their status as child,liAe Women Guite as much as men are credited >ith minds, a capacity for Judgment and choice, an ability to entertain as points of reference both a consciousness of selfhood and a consciousness of social relationships There is no single term in 7agen to describe these attributes, unless it is that of being human, but if >e regard them as amounting to a concept of personhood, then it is clear that the public po>er >omen e.ercise Dthe political content of their decisionsE is irrele"ant to their definition as persons 4ndeed, >omen often go their o>n >ay, follo>ing the dictates of their minds, in the "ery act of refusing to acAno>ledge >hat men >ould classify as appropriate public goals ;ut this connotation of autonomy must not be o"erstressed Women are also credited by men and belie"e themsel"es able to set their minds on ends that benefit both se.es The most regular conte.t in >hich >omenFs minds are engaged in social endea"or is household production, domesticity itself The mind D>ill, a>arenessE, 4 >as told in 7agen, first becomes "isible >hen a child sho>s feeling for those related to it and comes to appreciate the interdependence or reciprocity that characteri6es social relationships The relationships al>ays taAe a particular form They present themsel"es initially in a domestic conte.t, for e.ample >hen the child acAno>ledges that its mother needs sticAs for the fire Guite as much as the child needs food to eat A gloss of mutuality is put upon the uneGual, asymmetrical relationship The child is held to ha"e a further model of interdependence in the figures of his parents As adults, husband and >ife are portrayed as mutually dependent upon each other, and because of the difference bet>een them The difference is absolute This interdependence turns upon the "alue put on >orA, in both the producti"e sense and as an inde. of intentional endea"or, a marA of maturity 8eciprocal acti"ity >ithin the household comes to symboli6e other,directed intentionality 7usband and >ife each contribute their >orA and effort to the household; such >orA is particular to the relationship and is not gi"en measure by the outside >orld The male preparation of gardens is not esteemed more highly than the female tending of crops or cooAing of food The domestic conte.t of >omenFs efforts does not reduce themas it does in industrial societiesto something less than >orA The transformation of >orA into prestige belongs to another realm of discourse, for it remains true, as >e ha"e seen, that labor DproductionE page3$' Page $* is de"alued in relation to acti"ities surrounding ceremonial e.change DtransactionE This should not be confused >ith the status of domestic >orA in a capitalist, >age,earning economy The domestic unit is not seen to depend on >ider institutions, as the Western household depends upon an outside >orAplace, but is in the local "ie> "iable on its o>n MenFs public affairs and the pursuit of prestige among themsel"es may belittle the "alue of domestic >orA in the rhetoric of collecti"e interests, but this only reminds them >hat they also Ano>that as men they must be effecti"e in their o>n domestic obligations Abo"e all, then, the domestic household is the place >here people sho> themsel"es to be proper persons engaged in reciprocal transactions The con"erse, as later chapters >ill maAe clear, is that persons are also created in that conte.t as the obJect of their relations >ith others #rucial to this conceptuali6ation is the construction of differences and asymmetries bet>een those so related The male migrants >ho >ent from 7agen to Port Moresby not only de,politici6ed their "ie> of their o>n position but also de,domestici6ed it 4n the general 7agen "ie>, they >ere not shaAing off the confines of an infantili6ing home These actions held a profound threat: male migrants forego the frame>orA of mutual interdependence, established >ithin the domestic sphere, >hich creates the mature person They in turn might be able to ignore the politics and rhetoric of senior men, but find it much harder to denigrate the claims of >omen 4t is easier for them to cast themsel"es sardonically into the role of rubbish men than it is to deny appeals to that interdependence >ith others >hich both constitutes and symboli6es sociality itself 4n 7agen eyes, >omenFs association >ith procreation and children renders them polluting and >eaA, yet these symbols are to be distinguished from Western symbols of social e"olution that classify the house,bound >oman as child,liAe and dependent As agents of sociali6ation, in this latter "ie>, >omen are associated >ith its earliest phases, especially the pre"erbal training of infants in >hom must be instilled certain habits Sociali6ation reproduces the social e"olution of man and the creation of culture: children become persons as they begin to manipulate artifacts and learn social rules The mother, in the Western >orld "ie>, is gateAeeper to the outer >orldhence our parado.ical concept of independence to refer to entry into this >orld The mother is tainted by this state of dependency, reinforced in her role as >ife This rendition of Western stereotypes is spelled out in order to dislodge 7agen notions of domesticity from such a matri. Those con,

page3$* Page $) fined to the domestic domain are not in 7agen regarded as less than adult, as incapable of autonomous action A >omanFs contribution to the household is seen as a matter of her emotional and rational commitment 7agen notions of human nature posit that self,identity and social consciousness mature o"er time, so that the mind is nurtured, sho>ing e"idence of itself in a childFs gro>ing self,determination and its a>areness of others There is no concept of childhood prolonged through continued dependency, because there is no eGuation bet>een adulthood and independence @n the contrary, rather than gro> a>ay from them, the child gro>s into sets of particulari6ed social relationships, predicated on that asymmetrical relation bet>een itself and its parents #hildhood dependency upon parents is imaged as a matter of mutual feeling bet>een them -inally, these ideas of personhood do not turn directly on dominance 4t is not the case that a person can be him or herself only through freeing the self from constraints imposed by others, an idea that shado>s certain Western constructs Whate"er use is being made of maleness and femaleness in ranAing acti"ities of one Aind or another, for 7agen it is not necessary to erect a model of personhood predicated either on e.tradomestic domains of po>er or on a politici6ation of domesticity 4n so far as the di"ision of labor bet>een spouses stands for mutuality in general, it is the domestic domain that produces full persons !nder no definition of the term could an anthropologist >orAing >ith a concept of FsocietyF regard 7ageners as supposing this domain to be infrasocial or outside society T>o Types @f Sociality The analysis of initiation ritual in the +astern 7ighla nds can be subJected to similar scrutiny 4f >e label as social the Ainds of relations people establish >ith one another, their capacity to influence and be effecti"e, the obligations and constraints and po>ers these interactions set up, then from our point of "ie> men and >omen emerge eGually from these studies as social actors And from the Papua /e> Guinean point of "ie>, they eGually impinge upon one another 4t >ould be false to read off from the rituali6ation of physiology a symboli6ed contrast bet>een social actors and natural indi"iduals There is no reason to suggest that, any more than in 7agen, +astern 7ighlands peoples imagine a FnatureF upon >hich society and culture >orA to impose their rules and classifications 4ndeed if social relationships are taAen for granted, a Melanesian model of the person >ould already incorporate page3$) Page $0 the fact of connection or relation The person is not a.iomatically Fan indi"idualF >ho, as in Western formulations, deri"es an integrity from its position as someho> prior to society We cannot then argue that >hat males claim to dominate are female elements conceptuali6ed in e.tra,social terms, "i6 physiological po>ers as attributes of an e.ternal nature @n the contrary, their concepts of collecti"e and bodily acti"ity are more simply understood as tantamount to a theory of social action *$ When po>ers are defined in an oppositional >ay such that one set seems lethal to the other, a conseGuent rhetoric of antagonism may become attached to a percei"ed asymmetry bet>een actors Thus it may seem to be FmenF >ho feel threatened by F>omenF, that is, their collecti"ity by the particularity of dependency relations Antagonism conseGuently appears, as the early field>orAers argued, to in"ol"e unilateral domination and an.ieties about domination :et the apparently ine.plicable Guestion of moti"e dogs the Guestion of male domination An institutionali6ed desire to dominate implies the construction of concepts that linA domination to a percei"ed benefit As @rtner D*$%1E obser"ed, there has to be a grounding imperati"e to categori6e difference before the differentiated FotherF is constructed as an obJect to be subdued This remains une.plained in the se.,role models of gender relations that suppose >omen present themsel"es to men as a self,e"ident DFantagonisticFE category /or can this model account for the Ainds of shifts, described earlier in this chapter, >hich lead to the positi"e association of >omen >ith the responsibilities of ritual life The formula that 4 prefer is that gender demarcates different types of agency Persons differentially impinge upon one another, and imagining FmaleF or FfemaleF ranges of efficacy becomes a >ay of eliciting these di"erse types DWagner *$%1:**)E @n the one hand efficacy deri"es from collecti"e action, based on the sharing of identity, and on the other hand from particular relationships, based on interdependency and difference bet>een persons Gender imagery thus differentiates sociality,)' >hich is

conseGuently concei"ed as al>ays taAing one of t>o forms ;iersacA offers a comparable argument for the Paiela, a 7ighlands people to the far >est of 7agen and +nga She analy6es the gendering of a public2domestic dichotomy as a refle.i"e discourse on social life The most salient feature of human life is di"ersity and "ariability, and FFPaiela use a "ery simple discursi"e de"ice for talAing about di"ersity and "ariability They employ a physical difference, se.ual dimorphism, to signify a polarity that is thought to characteri6e the species as a type of moral and social beingL D*$&1:*01E The superior2inferior page3$0 Page $1 a.is of gender ideology she relates to its refle.i"e character: it could ne"er be none"aluati"e 4t is the Guestion of e"aluation that triggers >hat 4 earlier described as Western theories of social constructionism The Western +uropean notion of society, as it informed anthropological and feminist accounts of the *$%'s, grasps collecti"e action, >hether in an integrati"e or competiti"e mode, as binding entities different from itself Sociality is seen to rest in relations bet>een indi"iduals, in the social and cultural constructions of the indi"idual or of se.ed persons Dmen and >omenE >hose indi"iduality or se.ing lies beyond the construction )* +le"ated to academic discourse, >e may call such a concept positi"ist or bourgeois 4t by no means has a monopoly on Western ideas of society, but through its counterpart in >idespread folA models De g , Schneider *$6&E, >ith their o>n gender symbolism, in this sense enJoys hegemonic status The po>er of society is sho>n in its control of the e.trasocial indi"idual Subordinating FnatureF or sociali6ing the Findi"idualF pro"ide images for one another 4n the same >ay as descriptions of systems produce the idea of e"ents, such a notion of society produces the concept of presocial DbiologicalE entities, liAe so much ra> material, and the relationship is fore"er a source of speculation This particular model of society employsas do similar "ersions in the history of +uropean thought D9loyd *$&1Ea distinction bet>een male and female to symboli6e that relationship The model cannot Aeep the polari6ation steady but s>itches bet>een suggesting that society is the source of creati"ity and energy and that the indi"idual is, or bet>een seeing females as instinctual, natural beings and seeing them as refined end products of ci"ili6ation Such concepts ha"e profound conseGuences for the >ay in >hich Western +uropeans thinA about relations bet>een men and >omen 7o>e"er much >illpo>er is applied to re"ersing the terms of e"aluation or adJusting them in fa"or of one se. rather than the other, the fact of e"aluation remains This, in 8ubinFs D*$%(E >ords, is our political, economy of se. The implicit culture,nature dichotomy becomes highly rele"ant to the hegemonic Western formulation of public,pri"ate domains not only as a matter of content Dthe domestic domain is regarded as the site of biologically based acti"ityE but in terms of the structured relationship bet>een intractable, gi"en units and the >orAing of social forces >hich Dthrough e.change or the di"ision of labor bet>een households, for instance, see 7arris *$&*E creates superordinate ties and thus sustains sociality bet>een other>ise autonomous entities Thus the domaining acti"ity itselfthe separation of public DFsocialFE affairs from pri"ate, page3$1 Page $( domestic onesholds an analytical place liAe that of the incest taboo, a separation that creates FcultureF The di"ision is posited as a model of the creation of society itself This Aind of argument further taAes for granted a refle.i"e function in social classification; people are bound to describe their relations to one another in such a >ay as to create a second,order modelling that subsumes a first order one There is the double imputation here that the operation of ordering, the indigenous organi6ation of ideas about social life, >ill sho> in the product of such reflection, "i6 as an internal analysis of social life into more ordered and less ordered parts Thus, the public domain may be understood as an e.teriori6ation of or a sociali6ing process brought to bear upon familial atomism -or significant to the constellation of Western concepts concerning the notion of society is consciousness Gatens D*$&0E remarAed that sociali6ation theorists had to >orA >ith a body,consciousness split Gillison maAes the point in relation to specifically anthropological theori6ing about the construction of models as acts of consciousness: LThe opposition bet>een culture and nature represents an e.ternali6ation of the relation bet>een mind and body or bet>een consciousness and instinctL D*$&': *%**%)E The terminology of FconstructionF, as in the social and cultural construction of gender, reminds us of the close conceptual relationship in Western thought bet>een consciousness and reason, >ith reason e"incing itself in system and systematics

The ideal of an ordered realm of thought to >hich intellect can retreat from the confusion of passion and the sensuous has dominated Western intellectual aspirations from the time of Plato -rom their earliest origins in GreeA thought, our ideals of 8eason ha"e been associated >ith a flight from the particular; and associated, too, >ith the idea of a public space remo"ed from the domestic domain 8eason is the prereGuisite for, and point of access to, not Just the public domain of political life but also a public realm of thoughta realm of uni"ersal principles and necessary orderings of ideas 4n the highly influential picture of morality >hich found its fullest e.pression in <antFs ethics, this realm of uni"ersal principles >as seen as the proper locus of moral consciousness; the picture is in many >ays still >ith us D9loyd *$&0:1$'1$*E 4t becomes easy for the Western obser"er to assimilate indigenous model,building to a second,order acti"ity, to a type of systemati6ation, the product of consciousness, >hich replicates the organi6ational forces of society itself FModelsF and FrepresentationsF are concei"ed page3$( Page $6 holistically At the same time, any organi6ational principle can also be construed as Fa "ie>F ;ecause the image is of self,reflecti"e acti"ity, a pluralistic hypothesis is also possible: that any one set of rationali6ations comprises a "ie> from a specific "antage point The concepts of models, representations, the imposition of systems, ultimately predicated upon assumptions about nature and culture, thus enable the feminist anthropological critiGue of ideology to taAe the form it does -or the Melanesian cases, 4 am not sure that the indigenous modelling of domains, in the "ocabulary of the *$%'s, is helpfully regarded as second,order self,reflection 4 suggest >e regard their e"aluations as predicates for action, and that >hat is made "isible are differentiated competences This disposes of the supposition that a gendered domaining necessarily represents different points of "ie> The idea of domains corresponding to menFs and >omenFs >orlds is not a dualism that needs be sustained in the Melanesian conte.t 5omaining itself is not simply a male description of the >orld imposed upon a pree.isting heterogeneous nature; nor do the "alues ascribed to the domains simply stand for menFs and >omenFs intrinsically opposed perspecti"es The "ery Guestions about the articulation of domains that >ere so important to the anthropological,feminist critiGue turn out to endorse a model of a society that must code its o>n and not other peopleFs gender constructs @ne must, in fact, get a>ay altogether from the model of a FmodelF that taAes symbolic representation as ordered reflection )) 5omaining is better taAen as an acti"ity, the creation2implementation of different as a social act )0 This repeats the conclusion to chapter 0 There it >as asserted that the "ehicle of symbolism should not be seen as its cause Dthat gender imagery is about men and >omenE; here, that a differentiation into domains of acti"ity is not necessarily e.plicable in terms of their character ;ut one might asA: >hy is so much energy thro>n into the act of differentiation itselfM There is certainly a strong Melanesian interest in e"aluating the >ay in >hich persons affect and influence one another 5ifferent types of relationships are made "isible in transactions bet>een persons 4ndeed, to imagine these interests as tantamount to a theory of social action rather than a theory of society might bring one closer to being able to adJudicate on issues of ineGuality or at least to address the premises on >hich the actors percei"e their po>er -or the cases discussed in this chapter still lea"e us >ith Guestions about the nature of the boundaries dra>n through se.ual imagery 4n essence, there is only one boundary There are not an infinite number of types of sociality but basically t>o: page3$6 Page $% for the moment >e can continue to call these FpoliticalF and FdomesticF, if >hat is understood is a contrast bet>een collecti"e action Dbased on shared identities and aimsE and particular relations Dbased on the difference and interdependence bet>een themE The one can thus be construed as FopposedF to the other ;ut in >hat sense does one also appear as subordinate to the otherM -or the +astern 7ighlands case especially has raised the issue of male domination WomenFs #o. meri rituals did not emphasi6e domination; >omen claimed superior financial sAill in order to circum"ent male irresponsibility but not to control men as such MenFs traditional cult acti"ity, ho>e"er, seems to ha"e in"ol"ed emphatic assertions of superiority as the basis for domination o"er >omen That claim remains to be e.amined

page3$% Page $&

( Po>er: #laims and #ounterclaims 4nterpretations of se.ual antagonism in the Papua /e> Guinea 7ighlands ha"e ne"er taAen menFs claims at face "alue 4 do not mean as to >hether their domination o"er >omen is effecti"e but in reference to the >ay the claims as such are promoted -or these are seen to e.press an.ieties on menFs part about their FrealF control of >omenFs po>ers, and hence indicate both the e.tent to >hich these po>ers present a challenge and the e.tent to >hich menFs social institutions fail to acAno>ledge an ultimate dependence upon >omen Withdra>al into all male acti"ities, it is held, by denying also asserts the po>er of the e.cluded se. A conundrum runs through anthropological analyses of male and female initiation2puberty rites: >hen a category of persons claims ritual po>ers Dthrough secret Ano>ledge, cult engagementE, is it because they ha"e or because they do not ha"e comparable po>ers in other terms Din daily life, in politicsEM * The conundrum taAes many forms but is most perple.ing in relation to the initiation of boys into all,male associations or cults 5o such male rituals imitate female capacities DFen"yFE or supersede them DFsuperiorityFEM Are men compensating for >hat they lacA or appropriating >hat females possessM 5o ritually made statements reflect distributions of secular po>er or are they a sop to lacA of po>erM ;eliefs may be regarded as simultaneously e.aggerating and re"ersing social realities, but such eGui"ocations also accept certain of page3$& Page $$ the actorsF definitions 4t is they >ho propose a difference bet>een male and female capacities The conundrum comes from Joining these propositions to the anthropological habit of thinAing of society in terms of domains #onseGuently, it touches on the "ery structure of anthropological e.planation, on the manner in >hich different areas of social life are symboli6ed This operates in t>o modes that >ere encountered in the last chapter, and both apply to the analysis of initiation2puberty ritual The first regards ordered, institutional life as imposed upon a reality that both presents it >ith its reasons for e.istence Dcontrolling nature, harnessing resourcesE and confronts its orderliness Din the recalcitrance of indi"idualsE The second di"ides up areas of social life into different le"els or spheres; one talAs of public and pri"ate le"els or political and ritual spheres, >ith an inbuilt ambiguity as to >hether these are adJacent to or encompass one another When social life is regarded as moti"ated by the need to integrate the one >ith the other these analytical di"isions come to assume a taAen,for,granted or innate status as part of the data The much used metaphor of FarticulationF aptly summari6es the problems posed by this second mode 4 taAe the t>o briefly in turn -irst, imposition upon reality The claims 7ighlands men maAe in the conte.t of their rituals ha"e been interpreted as strenuous assertions by >hich they at once dominate >omen and mystify themsel"es To suggest that a set of ideas has a mystifying effect also suggests, of course, that a real situation e.ists beyond them, that the actors are incorrectly apprehending reality #onseGuently there e.ists an interesting asymmetry to these accounts Men are regarded as deluding themsel"es, but >hat they attribute to >omen is taAen by the obser"er as real Where GahuAu,Gama or Sambia men stress, as they do, that one of the achie"ements of their ritual is maAing boys gro>, the ethnographer may point to the supporting e"idence that the men also adducethat by contrast >ith boys, girls mature rapidly at pubertyand locate the e"idence for him2herself in real nature 8ead >rites, 4t may be a simple obser"ation Ni e , common sense realityO, but 4 thinA the GahuAu,Gama noted that the signs of se.ual maturation are more ob"ious D"isibleE in females than in males They did not hesitate D>ithout any promptingE to liAen the nosebleeding rites of the nama cult to menstruation, e.plaining that both >ere necessary to complete the process of maturation, and also acAno>ledging that men had to simulate Dritually induceE an e"ent that occurred naturally in >omen D*$&1:))%E page3$$

Page *'' What FtheyF mean by gro>th is assimilated to >hat F>eF >ould mean Dcompare 9indenbaum *$%6:(%E Men are thus seen to be grappling >ith problems >hich lie in DrealE physiological processes beyond their DrealE control The rapidity >ith >hich girls gro> is often noted to be part of indigenous commentary on male initiation -emale FinitiationF may celebrate or strengthen this gro>th or be regarded as a further de"ice for bringing such po>er under menFs control ) Where such suppositions are attributed to or "oiced by the people in"ol"ed, they feed into a general set of theoretical assumptions Don the part of anthropologistsE about the intrinsic and "isible "alue of >omen, particularly in terms of their fertility 4t is of a piece to taAe it as self,e"ident that men should organi6e social life so that they are able to e.change >omen bet>een themsel"es 4n the case of marriage disposal, it is argued that menFs domination of >omen is institutionali6ed in their right to allocate their claims to other men; in ritual, that men stri"e to come to terms >ith the idea of >omenFs natures Women confront men >ith a natural or real superiority in their biological functions >hich propel men into social action 4n the course of harnessing and organi6ing the natural resources embodied in >omen, the argument goes, menFs claims to an esoteric counterpo>er support concrete acts of domination o"er real >omen in other areas of life Such interpretations imply that >omen, because of their natures, do not FneedF to e.ercise the ritual po>er by >hich men mystify themsel"es 4ndeed, it is rather easy for an outsider to achie"e some distance from male pretensions >hen they are embedded in acti"ities Das in cultsE that the outsider does not taAe at face "alue :et >hen the obser"er is confronted >ith social realities he2she does taAe at face "alue, the argument about e.clusion proceeds differently When it is a domain of political or economic action that men create, bolstering their interest in >arfare, indi"idual acts of "iolence, or their e.traction of >omenFs labor, it is often treated as significant that >omen are >ithout the political and economic resources to protect their o>n interests To be e.cluded is to be depri"ed 4n ritual acti"ity, ho>e"er, menFs Fpo>erF may be interpreted as complementary to, as compensating for, or as controlling other Fpo>ersF that >omen e"ince of themsel"es Their e.clusion from ritual thus also appears natural and ob"ious Men may be regarded as simply attempting to o"ercome a Lfundamental disparity bet>een the se.esL >hich arises because L>omen are naturally endo>ed >ith reproducti"e capacityL D/e>man *$6(:&'E page3*'' Page *'* Second, ritual as a domain The staging and seGuencing of acts surrounding particular ceremonies lends concrete support to the anthropological perception of ritual acti"ity as a domain separate from other FareasF of life but ne"ertheless reflecting upon them The analytical separation seems further Justified by the actorsF o>n distinctions, for e.ample in >omenFs e.clusion from all,male ritual acti"ity We ha"e already encountered this Aind of thinAing in the assumption that a male domain must speaA to menFs e.clusi"e interests The conJunction of this assumption >ith the firstthat an organi6ed social life points to a reality beyondleads to the pre"alent anthropological supposition that it must be in menFs interests to dominate >omen 5omains are not merely adJacent to but potentially encompass one another -or these e.planations ine.orably produce the "ie> that menFs energies are de"oted to controlling something beyond themsel"es 4n the case of e.clusi"e all,male acti"ity, that beyond must be >omen or >hat >omen stand for; in the case of ritual performance, that beyond must be a mundane sphere of a political or economic character +.planation of male ritual thus freGuently turns on an FarticulationF bet>een domains -or those ethnographers >ho taAe menFs assertions about superiority as grappling >ith real issues of >omenFs po>er, menFs e.clusi"e cult actions are re"ealed as supporting actions outside the cult conte.t While they might ha"e their o>n internal logic, the cults are not regarded as achie"ing their ends e.clusi"ely >ithin their o>n frame>orA but as ha"ing an effect on mundane DrealE areas of social life 4t appears that men are able to Justify indi"idual acts of domination by reference to their collecti"e superiority, and to sustain the domination of their particular constructions of reality 4t may e"en be assumed that as a rich cultural acti"ity, the social life men create for themsel"es in the cults is in itself of "alue, so that >omenFs e.clusion is to their depri"ation 4n this "ie>, >omen are e.cluded from an arena of importance The argument supposes female en"y of male social life, >hich directly contradicts the earlier supposition that >omen someho> do not need ritual life These t>o potentially conflicting modes of anthropological e.planation bet>een them conceal the conundrum -or the t>o modes can be run together in the analytic imagery of control: the rites are to be understood in a double sense as men e.propriating >omenFs po>ers and controlling them by e.cluding them from a domain of social acti"ity At this Juncture the nai"e might asA, since the men are doing this all for themsel"es and since >omen are e.cluded, in >hat sense are

page3*'* Page *') menFs acti"ities of rele"ance to >omenM And should >e gi"e >eight, for instance, to an obser"ation 9edermen Din pressE maAes of Mendi >omen >ho Just did not seem to care "ery much about their e.clusion from group DclanE concernsM 4t is the concreteness of images such as domains, in this case the ethnographerFs geophysical metaphors, that leads to an analytical conflation bet>een a se. and its attributes Male ritual must be about menFs interests, for the obJect of menFs acti"ities lies FbeyondF them, as e.emplified in the idea that they desire to dominate >omen This Aind of supposition is intimately bound up >ith those Western e.planatory modes that regard one FareaF of life as imposed upon or as an e.teriori6ation of another, and force as applied to something beyond and e.ternal to the acting subJect As >e ha"e seen, such metaphors may further be attributed to the intentions and moti"ations of the actors The e.tension may be apposite in the hierarchical systems of the Aind ;loch and Parry D*$&):6E ha"e in mind >hen they point to certain specific contri"ances of the idea of social order The mortuary rituals >ith >hich they are concerned comprise Lan occasion for creating FsocietyF as an apparently e.ternal force Noriginal emphasis remo"edO L :et more pertinent is a further argument ;loch D*$&(:1'E presents about Madagascan DMerinaE initiation ritual: the picture of the >orld created by the ritual is not a guide to or map of peopleFs cogniti"e system /o such guide or map e.ists As 4 understand Melanesian concepts of sociality, there is no indigenous supposition of a society that lies o"er or abo"e or is inclusi"e of indi"idual acts and uniGue e"ents There is no domain that represents a condensation of social forces controlling elements inferior or in resistance to it The imagined problems of social e.istence are not those of an e.teriori6ed set of norms, "alues, or rules that must be constantly propped up and sustained against realities that constantly appear to sub"ert them People are sub"erted by the actions of other people @r they are attacAed by nonhuman forces fore"er beyond their reach The >orld is not mapped into spheres of influence, into adJacent and competiti"e empires /or do people en"ision a hierarchy of le"els >hose final battle ground is the subduing of the human body #onseGuently, initiation rites are not, 4 thinA, imagined as presenting the indi"idual >ith the po>er of society2culture as an e.ternal force, and one >hich in male hands is also an instrument of a mundane po>er they ha"e the prerogati"e to e.ercise 4t is not e.ternal forces that are, so to speaA, the problem at all Melanesians set for themsel"es the problem of in, page3*') Page *'0 ternal efficacy: ho> to dra> out of the body >hat it is capable of The rites construct >ays of Ano>ing >hat these capacities are This chapter is concerned to dismantle the concreteness of certain other anthropological metaphors that are so often ascribed to the minds of Melanesian participants 4t introduces my further argument that the po>erful Western image of control depends on concepts of o>nership and property These, in turn, ha"e often had a drastic effect on ho> Western anthropologists deal >ith the Guestion of gender identity They are also bound up >ith the conceptuali6ation of po>er, an ine"itable adJunct of any attempt to understand menFs emphatic claims to superiority and domination as they are reported in the ethnographic record Possession And 4dentity What is arresting about male initiation cults are the apparently conflicting idioms of e.clusion and appropriation -rom some of the supporting mythology of the +astern 7ighlands cults, men clearly construe their e.clusi"e acti"ities against the interests of >omen, as >hen boys are said to be torn from the mothers >ho >ant to retain them Whereas in the case of the e.traction of labor, the ethnographer has to supply an interpretation the actors do not necessarily admit, here are encountered blatant claims of e.traction 4n fact, the logic of cult acti"ity is constituted in such claims The "ery necessity to perform the rituals is gi"en by an original act of theft from >omen Across the +astern 7ighlands, society after society is reported in these terms The ritual paraphernaliaespecially the flutes that are a central secret of many initiation cultsholds po>er for men because at some point in the past they >rested it from the po>er of >omen Something >omen pre"iously possessed is no> in menFs hands, an apparently simple and effecti"e statement that >omen are a source of po>er and that men control it

Women are conseGuently construed by obser"ers as doubly depri"ed They are pre"ented from e.ercising the ritual po>er by >hich men appropriate their fertility This lacA of ritual po>er is further interpreted as indigenous Justification for their DrealE lacA of DrealE social po>er :et in spite of indigenous metaphors of e.traction, it is important not to e.tend the image of possession too far #ertainly >e should not merge these Melanesian formulations >ith the Western concept of pri"ate property Such property notions pose another conundrum: >ho really FhasF the page3*'0 Page *'1 po>erM 4s it those >ho say they ha"e it or those >ho do not ha"e to maAe such statementsM -or ultimately po>er is Ano>n, in the positi"ist "ie>, by its attachment as a resource to the possessor, >ho e"inces FitF in interaction >ith others :et this definiti"e Western image of possession occludes the "ery Guestion of interaction Possession implies a finality and thus holds out hope for the obser"er of an ultimate adJudication about >hich se. has po>er The rituals referred to here, of course, ne"er come to completion; they in"ol"e constant and repeated assertions about the significance of the theft The impression deri"ed from these accounts is not that of an ultimate "ictory commemorated but of contemporary battles freshly engaged As 8ead points out in his retrospect, if >omen >ere FenemiesF they >ere ne"ertheless enemies FFas necessary to the ideal of masculine strength as the traditional enmities bet>een adJoining tribal groupsL D8ead *$&1:)00; Tu6in *$&':0*0E This necessary confrontation is not illuminated by our thinAing that Melanesians conceptuali6e po>er as a possession, as something that one person FhasF and another Fdoes not ha"eF in this or that area of life An idiosyncratic feature of popular Western concepts of property is that singular items are regarded as attached to singular o>ners The fact of possession constructs the possessor as a unitary social entity, true >hether the o>ner is acting as an indi"idual or a corporation Property is construed as a relation bet>een persons and things, and the person is an entity to >hich things are e.ternal Whether property is Fpri"ateF or FcommunalF, the possessor is the singular author or proprietor Thus communal property >ould be o>ned by a community and in this sense >ould be analogous to pri"ate property so,called Anthropological theories ha"e for long pro"ided a critiGue of such ideas through the analysis of multiple interests This >as prompted largely by in"estigations of African Ainship and politico,economic systems that had to deal >ith eGuations bet>een persons and FthingsF Das in bride>ealthE or the Fo>nershipF of persons by other persons Das in certain authority structuresE The terminology of o>nership came to be abandoned or at least modified, in anthropological analysis, being substituted by a fle.ible interpretation of FrightsF: rights in things and against persons can be shared or structured in such a >ay that the item is ne"er e.clusi"ely allocated to one social person 4nterpretations of non,Western property systems, including the disposition of rights >ith respect to persons, are thus ad"anced in specific critiGues of pri"ate property as a uni"ersal category, a point to >hich 4 return in the ne.t chapter /onetheless, a proprietorial premise continues to inform an, page3*'1 Page *'( thropological interpretations of peopleFs conceptuali6ation of po>er Po>er is regarded as attached to a person in such a >ay as to define the personFs identity There is an either2or, ha"e2ha"e not Guality about it, >hich also holds for Western gender constructs /o> if it is not, in the end, going to be helpful to regard po>er as held liAe a piece of property, the same may be true of se.ual identity This >ould release the analysis of initiation2puberty ritual from Western se.,role assumptions about the unitary nature of the entities constructed in Melanesian gender concepts -or to assume that male initiation cults simply maAe boys into men is to assume that the boys ha"e an incomplete se.ual identity 4t is supposed that they must become endo>ed >ith the appropriate attributes, that they must find their real identity There must be a point at >hich a boyFs perception of himself matches the social e.pectations of the category role he is to play as a full adult 4n short, at issue is a figure >hose constitution must sho> internal consistencyFmaleF in terms of maturity, se.ual characteristics, inner feelings, and out>ard social attributes These he all o>ns as part of himself Women and their po>ers, or associations and relations >ith >omen, could only compromise a masculinity constructed in such a totalistic fashion -emininity is interpreted in a similarly totalistic manner, especially in the e.tent to >hich 7ighlands ethnographers d>ell on female pollution as marAing out a definiti"e se.ual identity 4t is taAen as MelanesiansF signification of intrinsic female nature

These latter assumptions ha"e been to some e.tent disturbed by t>o sets of reports from the +astern 7ighlands made in the *$%'s -aithorn and Meigs both obser"e that pre"ailing anthropological suppositions about unilateral pollutionthat it is al>ays >omen >ho pollute menreflect patchy Ano>ledge on the ethnographerFs part -aithorn D*$%(E argues that >e should attend to conte.ts in >hich men are a source of pollution 0 Meigs D*$%6; *$&1E emphasi6es that >e are mistaAen in seeing pollution, a particular capacity to harm, as an attribute of men or of >omen; rather, for the 7ua people, it is a Guality that inheres in substances >hich may be passed bet>een them 1 4ndeed, these substances are po>erful because they are transferable ( Thus she identifies "arious disconcerting facts, as she calls them, that suggest that 7ua Lattempt to neutrali6e or obscure the male,female opposition through a sharing of characteristics and flo> of membership bet>een the categories of male and femaleL D*$&1:1$E 4f pollution is a substance that can tra"el, then perhaps else>here in the highlands, as among the 7ua, the polluted class of persons cannot be defined page3*'( Page *'6 in terms of the genitalia, >hich are not in and of themsel"es polluting D*$&1:6$E As the substances associated >ith se.uality Dmenstrual blood, "aginal secretions, semenE are Ltransferable bet>een the t>o genital classes, this classification permits crosso"ers: a genitally male person may be classified as female through his contamination by female substances, and a genitally female person may be classified as male through the transfer of pollution out of her bodyL D*$&1:%'%*E 7o>e"er she implies that the transferred attributes then become possessed by the ne> o>ner, so to speaA, so that the condition of the total person becomes reclassifiable as male or female -or MeigFs description of 7ua suppositions about the theft of flutes from >omen remains committed to a style of analysis that assumes that a Lbelief in the natural superiority of >omenL is >hat moti"ates menFs rituals The position is >orth illustrating at length: NTOhe "ie> that >omen are by nature superior to males is implicit not only in the metaphor that relates se. and feeding but also in the origin myth of the flutes 4n this myth females are represented as the original producers and o>ners of the flutes, and conseGuently the original rulers of the society When >omen played the flutes, males hid their eyes and bo>ed their bodies to the ground in an attitude of submission At some point in the distant past men stole the flutes from the >omen With this theft of the symbol of political dominance they gained actual preeminence as >ell -rom this time on it >as >omen >ho had to prostrate themsel"es >hen the flutes >ere played Male supremacy >as thus achie"ed either by re"ersing the natural order, in >hich the female act of feeding is identified as good and the male act of se. as bad, or by o"erthro>ing it, >hen the men sei6ed po>er from its original and natural o>ners, the >omen D*$&1:1(E 4t is consistent >ith these male feelings of superiority to female po>ers that initiation among the 7ua as >ell as other /e> Guinea highland people is percei"ed as a compensation to males for their natural physical disad"antages The flutes re"ealed to initiates represent, 7ua men say, the male counterpart to menstruation 8ites of initiation, they add, represent the 7ua male ans>er to the challenge posed by the more rapid female gro>th and more dramatic female manifestations of maturity D*$&1:*01E Suggesti"e as the abo"e Gualifications are, it is patent that >e reGuire insight into the epistemological bases of these acts of classification What is the status of a personFs attributeM To this end 4 introduce three accounts that ha"e as their focus the elucidation of indigenous practices of Ano>ledge /one is >ritten from an e.plicitly feminist perspecti"e, although they >ould be germane to one page3*'6 Page *'% The transfers to >hich Meigs dra>s attention can be interpreted, it seems to me, as an instrument of Ano>ledge for the actors concerned, ho> they maAe certain po>ers and conditions Ano>n to themsel"es Melanesian perceptions of po>er are in turn elicited in the methods by >hich people come to Ano> about themsel"es and others, for peopleFs bodies are significant registers of their encounters >ith one another 6 7ere MeigsFs language is blunt but apt Much male ritual concerns definitions of masculinity in

physiological2genital terms 4mages of nurture and conception distribute different po>ers bet>een se.es: either se. can claim reproducti"e capacity of a Aind 5iscarding the social,control,of,nature paradigm >ill free one to thinA of this concern >ith physiological process in another >ayas a matter of >hat people discern must lie >ithin their bodies including, of course, >ithin their minds 4 follo> GillisonFs theoretical lead Gimi ideas of male and female yield to men and >omen different Ainds of efficacies ;ut the results are not images of a totalistic se.ed identity of a Western type @n the contrary, maleness and femaleness seem defined to the e.tent in >hich persons appear as detachable parts of others or as encompassing them 4n the end, it is not male or female substance that flo>s bet>een the se.es, as MeigFs description suggests, but "isible signs of the alternating conditions of persons in their ability to separate themsel"es from or contain one another The Guestion, then, becomes ho> people such as the Gimi maAe Ano>n >hat is FmaleF or FfemaleF 8unning through the practices in the cases that follo> are concepts of a proprietorial nature 4 ha"e emphasi6ed that >e should be >ary of the metaphors that creep into and constitute e.ogenous analysis, in particular WesternersF easy idioms of control MaAing e.plicit the practices by >hich people FAno>F and classify their attributes, including Ano>ledge of se.ual identity, >ill be some Aind of preparation for composing a description of those indigenous assertions of possession and appropriation MaAing Po>er <no>nK The three cases are dra>n from roughly the same areas considered in the pre"ious chapter 7ere 4 begin >ith ?anuatu, specifically >ith 8ubinsteinFs >orA on the island of Malo, to the >est of Pentecost, K These accounts are adapted from material 4 ha"e presented else>here: all three appear in the "olume edited by -ardon D*$&(E page3*'% Page *'& >here >omen substituted for menFs sense of being rooted The second case comes from the +astern 7ighlands of Papua /e> Guinea >ith its de"elopment of >omenFs rites of regeneration The Gimi, >hom Gillison studied, are on the southern borders of the #o. meri area 7er study is "ery much an inspiration to my general analysis -inally, 4 return to the Western 7ighlands The Paiela of +nga Pro"ince share some features >ith 7agen 4 ha"e chosen them both because DunliAe 7agenE they perform puberty rituals and because 4 >ish to dra> on ;iersacAFs e.plicit attention to the presentation of information 4n the first e.ample, ritual surrounds menFs entry into a system of public grades; in the second it is performed at both girlsF and boysF puberty ceremonies, and in the third in the conte.t of a male bachelor cult Graded society: Malo1 Types of Ano>ledge can be conceptuali6ed as attached to, detached from, and transferred bet>een persons D8ubinstein *$&*E % Traditional Malo Ano>ledge is di"ided into t>o components, concei"ed as distinct sensory operations The first component, FunderstandingF Dfrom FfeelF, FhearFE, refers to emotional response, the impact that interaction >ith others has on the inner person The second component, FAno>ingF Dfrom FeyeF, Fe.aminationFE, refers to a much more automatic response Le.isting at the boundary bet>een an indi"idual and his en"ironmentL D8ubinstein *$&*:*('E, and thus encompasses perception, recognition, and factual Ano>ledge <no>ledge of either type may be con"erted from an internal state to an e.ternal fact Words are its "ehicle, being considered as obJectified units of e.pressed Ano>ledge Malo do concei"e of sourceless Ano>ledge, but generally it is Fpart of a personF, connected to its bearer @"er his or her lifetime, each indi"idual amasses a specific array of Ano>ledgethe physical landscape is littered >ith items commemorati"e of e"ents under the proprietorship of particular persons !nderstanding is not pri"ileged o"er Ano>ing or "ice "ersa ;oth understanding and Ano>ing are personali6ed; they are also both capable of being obJectified ;oth ha"e their source in specific personsho> this felt, >ho sa> that>hile at the same time being potentially detachable things to be communicated to others 8ubinstein ponders on >hat he describes as the relationship bet>een personali6ed and obJectified Ano>ledge, >hich is parado.ical in terms of the Western antithesis bet>een subJects and obJects Malo en"isage a special relation bet>een persons and Ano>ledge, >hich establishes an page3*'&

Page *'$ identity bet>een an indi"idual and >hat he or she understands2Ano>s, but also detaches that sensory reaction as a resource transactable in encounters >ith others <no>ledge is liAe a gift -rom its characteristic as a resource DobJectifiedE it can operate as a toAen in the e.ternal >orld; but precisely because it is also part of the person Dpersonali6edE, its deployment is an immediate "ehicle for statements of that personFs po>er or standing An indi"idual may be the origin of certain facts or act as a channel for them This perception taAes three forms D*E F!nderstandingF or >isdom is a record of the >ay e"ents ha"e been e.perienced by someone PeopleFs conception of the order of things can be shared >ith others, thereby creating a factual >orld on the basis of personal e.perience: >hat is understood comes to seem obJecti"e and depersonali6ed 8ubinstein gi"es the e.ample of the cargo cult leader >ho impresses his "ision on those participating in his e.perience D)E The Aind of Ano>ledge DFAno>ingFE possessed as custom DsAills, spellsE can be transferred to others through payment: the transaction detaches the Ano>ledge from the original o>ner and reattaches it to the ne> 4t is possible to purchase anotherFs bodily gesture or idiosyncratic speech form The relationship bet>een person and Ano>ledge here is that bet>een o>ner and disposable, but not alienable, itemthe item retains its "alue as a resource from being simultaneously in anotherFs possession D0E Where Ano>ledge of either type is enunciated through >ords, factual "alue is measured directly by personal source -or e.ample, "alidation of >hat people say must come through reference to the person >ho Fsa>F it 5isembodied information is discounted 7ere the personal reference is crucial for establishing the obJecti"e status of a fact in the eyes of others @nly >hen information has belonged to a particular person can it ha"e social currency, that is, affect >hat others see or feel There is an intimate relationship bet>een the attachment of Ano>ledge and the structuring of po>er relations in menFs political life At the institutional heart of the traditional political system >ere fifteen ranAed grades, entry being restricted to men and achie"ed through the Ailling of tusAed pigs 8ubinstein D*$&*:*0$E refers to the pig,Ailling seGuence as a Lprogressi"e determination of masculinity L Women and those >ho had not gained initial entry >ere grouped into a single lo>,ranAing class Membership in"ol"ed consubstantiality: men of the same ranA ate together 9eaders, >ho purposefully F>alAedF, attained high ranA at the head of others >ho Ffollo>edF Such successful men held a monopoly on esoteric Ano>ledge, and its "alue >as related to page3*'$ Page **' the status of the indi"idual >ho claimed it, for the success of the indi"idual >as proof that the Ano>ledge >as true The three modes of linAing persons to one another through Ano>ledge transmission structure the acGuisition of ranA Thus D*E creating a factual >orld on the basis of shared personal e.perience: members of one ranA share a common life, ingest the same food D)E Transactability of sAills: partaAing of the po>er of a higher person is accomplished through purchase &a young man can only succeed by follo>ing an elder >ho sho>s him the pig,Ailling techniGues The elder disposes of his asset in this sense but >ith no loss to himself; through the purchase, ranA becomes attached to the Junior entrant D0E The measuring of factual "alue by personal source: po>ers of accreditation increase >ith ranAthe more highly ranAed, the more comprehensi"e is a manFs feeling and seeing; the facts of his success are testimony to his internal state of understanding and Ano>ing 8anA must be e.clusi"ely enough percei"ed in order to define interpersonal beha"ior yet open enough for its "alues to encompass e"eryone >ho is eligible The Malo structuring of e"eryday Ano>ledge establishes the conditions for its attachment as a personal Guality -or the DmaleE personFs processing of response Dthrough Ano>ing and understandingE is construed as a set of assets, the "alue of these assets being reflected in the eyes of others and thereby determining his o>n "alue Secret Ano>ledge becomes a refle. of the fit assumed bet>een the sAills and enterprise by >hich high ranA is gained and a manFs superior but in"isible internal processing capacities AnyoneFs reali6ation of his Gualities as assetsin obJectifying them or claiming their personal sourcebrings confrontation >ith others 4n turn, assets are made out of oneFs position in life, such as se., age, accomplishments, >hich are seen as inseparable from the po>er of self,Ano>ledge DunderstandingE and of grasp of the social >orld DAno>ingE This differential e"aluation of persons constitutes their ranAing ,ntersexual transactions: Gimi1 Malo >omen are discounted as a category in e.changes bet>een high,ranAing men My second case concerns e.changes bet>een the se.es themsel"es and is pi"otal to my general argument GillisonFs D*$&'; *$&0E analysis of Gimi perception turns us a>ay from both social constructionist and proprietorial "ie>s of gender relations

The Gimi li"e in an isolated southern region of the +astern 7ighlands of Papua /e> Guinea To them Lthe surrounding rainforest is re, page3**' Page *** garded as a male refuge from >omen and from ordinary life >ithin the settlement The Gimi >ilderness is an e.alted domain >here the male spirit, incarnate in birds and marsupials, acts out its secret desires a>ay from the inhibiting presence of >omenL D*$&':*10E A special Aind of Ano>ledge leads to the reali6ation of menFs ambitions to identify >ith the nonhuman >orld and to be re"itali6ed by its Llimitless, masculine po>ers L This identification is achie"ed through initiation rituals >here male initiands are liAened to birds of paradise and hornbills and male potency to tall trees and flo>ing ri"ers :et the Ano>ledge imparted during the stages of the ritual maAes it clear that this is no realm definiti"ely cut off from things feminine @n the contrary, these features of the male natural >orld turn out to be female characteristics detached from >omen, FappropriatedF by men D*$&':*1%, *%'E At the center of male self,identity, then, lies a statement of their po>er >ith respect to >omen The female identity of elements central to male ritual in Melanesia is freGuently the subJect of ethnographic reports, to the greater or lesser surprise of the ethnographer $ Gillison dra>s e.plicit attention to an underlying premise: the transactability of >hat >e >ould regard as se.ual attributes These are e.changed bet>een men and >omen, attachment and detachment "isuali6ed in terms of gain and loss Such attributes are not purchased in the Malo fashion but are mythologi6ed as ha"ing been sei6ed >ith "iolence This interchange is reenacted in the contemporary >orld through the deliberate staging of shifts of meaning What >as one thing is seen to ha"e been something else At different points of Ano>ing, different origins and thus different identities are attached to the actorsF se.ual parts Gimi rituals in"ol"e flutes Mythically stolen long ago from >omen, they are sounded during the male initiation seGuence in the all,male forest preser"e This decisi"e separation from >omen is dramatically dissol"ed at one point and re,presented as encompassment Maleness is re"ealed to include female features, Ano>ledge of >hich is imparted through "erbal commentary on >hat the initiands are FseeingF Perceptions are altered: As the climactic moment of re"elation of the flutes to adolescent male no"ices approaches, the symbols of the body in menFs initiation songs, >hich up to this moment ha"e been uneGui"ocally masculine, no> become bise.ual Trees are phallic proJections >hich not only ha"e FheadsF that feed birds Dsymbols of the erect penis, the gorgeously befeathered initiates and the transcendent spirit of dead menE but they also ha"e hollo> trunAs inside page3*** Page **) >hich nest FfemaleF marsupials Dsymbols of >omenFs pubic hair, initiates >hen they are called Fne> "aginasF, and the ancestral spirit,childE 7ead>aters are not only clear streams of male effusions but are also, according to the singers, the issuances from fissures in rocAs and from inside mountain ca"es The darA ca"ities of trees and rocAs, Gimi men say, are liAe "aginas; the ri"ers, liAe menstrual blood D*$&':*%'E A special Aind of self,Ano>ledge is thus imparted The initiate is not being endo>ed >ith attributes; rather he learns that >hat he already has Dhis genitalsE are signs of encounters >ith >omen that already ha"e taAen place They commemorate menFs theft: the beard he >ill gro> originated >hen the first man played the flute not reali6ing it >as plugged >ith his sisterFs pubic hair The flute >as simultaneously the >omanFs child and the >omanFs birth canal, and possession of it as his penis means that the initiand has both been successfully separated from >omen Dhis motherE and contains >ithin him "ital reproducti"e po>er LMasculinity is >holly achie"ed >hen the married Gimi initiate successi"ely assumes the ritual identities both of female DmenstruatorE and male Dflute,o>nerE and of mother Dsupplier of uterine foodE and child Deater of uterine foodE To attain full male status the initiate symbolically acts as his o>n creator 7e is mother to himselfL D*$&':*61, emphasis remo"edE The impact of these eGuations is built up through stages The true man is defined as pan,se.ual and capable of reproducing himself >ithout >omen The po>er to create is itself defined in male formthe hollo> penis is >omb; menstrual blood is semen as it emerges from real or symbolic Dnoses and arms of male initiatesE penises 7o> is this made to stand as Ano>ledgeM

The truth of this Ano>ledge about men is established, 4 >ould argue, by the e"idence of >hat happens to >omen -irst, men ha"e e.tracted something from a source thus made e.ternal to themsel"es Men o>n the flutes, and >omen bear e"idence to the theft in their bleeding from the >ound Second, by masculini6ing female attributes D>omb, menstruationE men imply that the effecti"e reproducti"e capacities of real >omen are male in origin Parallel to male initiation is a rite for girls Gimi girls are betrothed before puberty, and at her first menses the bride is FinitiatedF by men of her husbandFs clan They taAe male spirit from their forest and deposit it in the female She drinAs ancestral semen Dri"er >aterE and eats a spirit child Da marsupial encased in sugarcane and "ines, a penisE These obJects are forced on her 4f she does not eat page3**) Page **0 these foods she >ill not bear her husbandFs children #hildbirth becomes testimony to male efficacy *' ;ut there is eGui"ocation here: if men are self,reproducing, then >omen may be self,reproducing too Since menFs capacities are sustained by ritual, it becomes this ritual alone that pre"ents >omen from being parthenogenetic ;ut once they >ere and so they could be again 4f men possess no> >hat >omen no longer ha"e, their current claims to being self,reproducing blocA >omen from maAing the same DmaleE claim; at the same time, because of the cross identities set up, >hat is possible for the male se. is perpetually recreated as possible also for the female MenFs fears Lsuggest that female and male ha"e too great an affinity, are too easily brought togetherL D*$&':*('E 4 ha"e follo>ed GillisonFs e.position of Gimi menFs "ie>s She argues that >omen generally concur in gi"ing credence to their underlying assumptions, though >here men orchestrate ritual, >omen orchestrate the gro>th of plants and pigs 4t >ould be an error, ho>e"er, to interpret menFs intended definition of themsel"es as reproducers as also taAing a>ay >omenFs reproducti"e po>ers @n the contrary, their o>n reproducti"e acti"ity is e"inced in >omenFs What they taAe a>ay is >omenFs ability to plant or implant the ne> life that the >omen must gro> for them The ne> life must be conceptuali6ed as part of their male sel"es 4n constructing this image, they momentarily e.tend the claim to the ability to encompass and gro> the ne> life itself, in unitary identity >ith its DmaleE source ;ut there is no prior stasis in the respecti"e po>ers of the se.es: Lseparations in e.istence Dself2other, male2female, human2animal, etc E are repeatedly destroyed in order that they may be repeatedly createdL D*$&':*%*E The product of this tussle is an image of po>er itself The conte.ts in >hich no> male and no> female is seen as the encompassing agent together constitute the possibility of encompassment as such 4t taAes a singular form LSe.ual antagonism is a conflict o"er >ho controls the indivisi)le po>er to reproduce the >orldL D*$&':*%*, original emphasisE The indi"isible flute is symbol of a thing that Lcannot be shared,L but Lis >holly possessed by one se. or by the otherFF; it is Ltransmissible but indi"isibleL D*$&0:1$E 4n daily life, Gimi men claim superiority o"er >omen: they shun them through fear of contamination, and Gillison refers bluntly to Gimi >omenFs debasement :et the ritual cannot be said simply to "alidate male po>er 8ather, it is an elaborate commentary on the nature of page3**0 Page **1 po>er That there are parallel rites for girls and boys is significant Gimi ha"e produced a double system of Ano>ledge that rests on the claims of one se. being fore"er defined by the claims of the other; yet there can be no resolution in terms of the claims The product of this dialogue is also its conte.t, not that one or other se. in the end encompasses but that Gimi ha"e created in the idioms of se.ual reproduction a model of po>er as encompassment, a totali6ing condition, and either se. may e"ince it totally 4 >ish to argue, moreo"er, that this po>er lies more in Fbeing able to doF, in its e"idence of an internal capacity, than in Fcontrol o"erF others We are misled in that e"idence of Fbeing able to doF is reflected in e.ternal others, through their changed state Gimi see peopleFs fears and desires as the basis of the contest bet>een the se.es Men are held to be moti"ated by the fear that >omen >ant to retain their children inside themsel"es rather than releasing progeny into the >orld 4ndeed, >omenFs songs imply that the female body can be sealed, retaining menstrual blood in the form of its o>n lineageFs semen Against this, her husbandFs lineage has to force the bride to eat the foods symboli6ing the entry of male spirit from a different source 4t is important also that >omenFs anthropophagytheir absorption of menFs bodies >hen they diebe construed as entirely F>omenFs ideaF This crucial processing of body enables male essence to be released into the >ild forest as a spirit2bird, and the

futures of unborn men depend on it ;ut the custom is held to ha"e begun spontaneously The first act of consumption is attributed to female appetite MenFs accounts of such e"ents in the recent past present them as chaotic and orgiastic, >hereas >omen recall the orderly distribution of the corpseFs parts and say they had too much compassion for the dead to let it rot in isolation Such compassion is congruent >ith the nurturing intentions mentioned in the last chapter Women tend the plants and pigs >hose gro>th so depends on their care MenFs fear that spirit >ill again be trapped >ithin the female is resol"ed by them at the end of the absorption process: for each part of the corpse that a >oman ate, she is gi"en >ild marsupial meat ;y replacing the DmaleE substance >ithin >omenFs bodies in this >ay, the men force it outside and thus compel the >omen to release spirit +"idence of >omenFs dri"ing moti"ations >as structured through the de"ice of secrecy ** Women >ere supposed to tricA their husbands >ho did not reali6e >hat they >ere eating, so that in effect they stole the corpse Das men stole the flutesE What >as not secret in actuality >as page3**1 Page **( thus made out to be so Women >ere secluded during the greater part of the mortuary meal, >ithin the menFs house >here the >rapped flutes >ere Aept that at other times tricAed them by their sounds, and >ere not allo>ed to emerge until ingestion >as complete The containment of >omen and the concealing of acts are central to these rites 4 noted in chapter 1 that the #o. meri seGuence >as structured through both pri"ate and public episodes 4ndeed, it is a feature of cult life in general in the 7ighlands, and of all initiation ritual, that a contrast is staged bet>een acts >hich remain FhiddenF and their effects >hich are brought into the FopenF There is nothing indi"idualistic about the pri"acy: it is a collecti"e pri"acy 4 >ould also note ho> often a ritual enclosure is the focus of these acti"ities; initiands or cult members are secluded in FhousesF that may be specifically designated as such *) The house image recalls Dfor myselfE the character of domestic interactions rather than of public life of a political nature A collecti"e domesticity: but instead of a cross,se. pair, the house is filled >ith persons all of one se.the opposite se. is represented through the artifacts and paraphernalia deployed in the course of the rituals and e"en perhaps in the gender of the enclosing house itself Gimi >omenFs secret de"ouring of flesh, liAe menFs secret blo>ing of the flutes, does not successfully dissemble information; it does orchestrate secrecy as an e"ent The se.es claim that details of their o>n ritual performances are FunAno>nF to the opposite se., not>ithstanding GillisonFs photograph sho>ing young men dressed as female initiates for a mime of female secret rites to be presented during the course of male ceremonies D*$&':*66E Gimi secrecy does se"eral things 4t allo>s process to occur: re"elation >ill be e"idence of a changed state Secrecy Ffi.esF moti"ation: in the same >ay as peopleFs intentions are locAed >ithin themsel"es, so the FrealF desires and impulses that are held to dri"e this or that category of people are locAed >ithin a portion of their ritual; secrecy indicates that those e.cluded do not share these dri"es -inally, it acts out encompassment: the stretches of secret ritual establish >hat the actors are claiming on a >ider stage, that they ha"e sole control o"er the meanings they gi"e to their internal actions This Aind of claim to po>er is self,fulfilling, a matter of po>er to do, of e"incing >hat the body is capable of 4n Gimi politics at large, the handling of moti"ation pro"ides a di"ide bet>een those >ho claim prestige and those >ho remain rubbish ;ig men can subordinate impulse and appetite, >hile little men gi"e in and become liAe >omen Gimi say, for e.ample, that little men could not page3**( Page **6 refrain from >atching >omen prepare the cannibal meal and >ould e"en Join their secret orgy and share in the meat also Generally, in the 7ighlands, big men are able to shape the management of e"ents because e"idence of management is fi.ed first in themsel"es 4n this positi"e feedbacA system, prestige leads to prestige -or if a big man can align the intentions of little men >ith his o>n, it is because the big man internally aligns himself in accord >ith ideal male beha"ior 7e literally maAes himself capable and thus embodies po>er to do Male pu)erty rights: 'aiela1 This last case concerns a Western 7ighlands society, Paiela, also rather isolated but related linguistically to the large populations of +nga,speaAers to their east *0 4 tooA a cue from ;iersacAFs D*$&)E analysis of Paiela puberty ritual in suggesting that one mechanism by >hich Gimi men Ano> the meanings of their o>n se.ual parts is the perpetual information before their eyes of >hat happens

to >omenbecause of men, >omen bleed DsemenE and gi"e birth Dto male spiritE Paiela men also see e"idence of themsel"es in >omen but through indi"idual relationships bet>een particular men and >omen and >ith respect to nonrepeatable short,term e"ents The definiti"e actions of >omen as a category are less important than ho> this or that >oman is beha"ing here and no> The e.ample suggests intentionality sAe>ed in the re"erse direction: >hat happens to Paiela men is e"idence of >hat >omen ha"e done and of ho> >omen are moti"ated ;iersacA is concerned >ith a rite >hose purpose Lis to gro> the boys >ho participate in it so that they might mature and marryL D*$&):)0$E The participants are thus oriented to>ards a particular relationship >ith the >omen >ho >ill become their >i"es *1 4n the rites, they are made dependent upon a female spirit, as in nonritual conte.ts husbands depend on >i"es A married man needs his >ife to perform secret gro>th magic for him e"ery time she menstruates, to maAe his sAin looA large and beautiful -irst, ho>e"er, a man has to become marriageable, and it is by entering into a relationship >ith the female spirit Dthe Ginger WomanE that he is initially gro>n as a man ;iersacA emphasi6es the transactional nature of the relationship he thus enJoys initially >ith his spirit >ife and then his human partner People and animals do not gro> by themsel"es, but transactionally, Las the beneficiary of someoneFs actionsL D*$&):)1*E 7ere, the se.es do not differentiate themsel"es through substances >hose identities can be e.changed; they are e.changing >ith substances already differentiated and >hose identities therefore remain constant page3**6 Page **% There is no changeo"er of gender and no place for girlsF puberty rites in such a system ;ut that does not mean that the se.es are bounded off from one another 8ather, Paiela accomplish through ritual >hat Gimi taAe for granted; Paiela men must compel >omen to gro> them ;iersacA points to the tri"ial material content of the initiatesF gifts to the female spirit Dthe ginger gardens planted for herE /e"ertheless, the transactional monopoly that men hold o"er ceremonial e.change thereby appears to create its counterpart idiom: >omenFs transactional monopoly o"er personal male gro>th Male gro>th has political connotations, in that the strength of a clan depends on the strength of its members *( Strength and health depend in turn on the success >ith >hich men influence the moti"ations of others 4ntermarrying groups may either fuse or polari6e in respect of potentially Joint acti"ities Those >ho are related may or may not support one another, may or may not e.change pigs, and perhaps the intentions of >i"es in this sense present a categorical problem to men As in other 7ighlands societies, intention is FunAno>ableF e.cept in so far as it can be read from beha"ior 4 >onder if in their rituals Paiela men attempt to resol"e a further political uncertaintythat dependency on a female caretaAer >ill actually Fgro>F them and Aeep them healthy -emale intentions are certainly at the heart of the ritual, and since intention al>ays remains hidden, only the outcomes being Ano>n, secrecy is important for its organi6ation ;iersacAFs theori6ation of communication codes points out the opposition Paiela set up bet>een >hat is "isible and >hat is in"isible Transactions are classified as o"ert or co"ert @"ert transactions are >itnessed by both parties, as in the open e.change of >ealth 4n co"ert transactions, the donorFs intentions are Aept out of sight, and his or her gift is only Ano>n as a condition subseGuently produced in the recipient A husband cannot obser"e his >ifeFs menstrual magic; he Ano>s she has performed it properly through the appearance of his sAin Gro>th itself is thought to occur in the in"isible inner layer of a personFs body, belo> the surface of the sAin, so that the Lsi6e of the epidermis is the conseGuence of an action that occurs offstageL D*$&):)1*E This action is thus percei"ed to be a Dco"ertE decision,maAing process on the part of the manFs female caretaAer, and only after the e"ent can a husband reconstruct his >ifeFs intentions>hether she meant help or harm 7ers is the crucial and hidden decision >hether to perform the correct menstrual magic, neglect to do so, or e"en perform it maliciously >ith inJurious specifications The Paiela political system, predicated on sustaining relationships page3**% Page **& bet>een Ain groups through e.change and2or >ar, is intensely concerned >ith the structure of intentions 8elations bet>een >hole sets of people can shift according to intentions re"ealed 4f gifts are gi"en, are they adeGuate Dgood intentions for the futureE or inadeGuate Dbad intentionsEM 4f a fight taAes place, is it a co"er for something else Dallies playing a double gameE or the hostility it appears to be Denemies acting as

enemiesEM 4ndeed, there is uncertainty about e"en o"ert transactions 4n spite of people FseeingF the material embodiment of intention in a gift or blo>, this Ano>ledge must rapidly regress on itself What relationship does a single gift or blo> bear to >ider social and political issuesM ;y contrast, co"ert transactions can be apprehended in a singular encompassing form 4n"isible, ritually,enacted decision,maAing, as in the gro>th rituals, substitutes uncertainty about the act Dthe transaction bet>een initiate and spirit remains secretE for certainty about its outcome The "isible effects of these ritual transactions are located >ithin the confines of a single body 4n communicational terms, ;iersacA argues, the secrecy of the boysF seclusion is necessary to structure a relationship bet>een obser"er and obser"ed The audience >aits in uncertainty to see >hat >ill ha"e happened to the boys When they emerge, handsomely decorated, out of the forest enclosure, uncertainty is replaced by certainty Those >atching no> decide >hether they are being informed that the boys ha"e indeed gro>n or >hether they are still small and puny The obser"ing >itness is crucial, because >hat he or she recei"es is >hat is being imparted A boy either does or does not maAe a fa"orable impression Thus gro>th Lis a product of a recognition of differenceL D*$&):)('E, >hereas imperceptible change produces no information ;ut the e"idence is self,contained, the rele"ant criteria being displayed for each initiate in his o>n body 4t is also uni,dimensional; only physical gro>th is at issue and not the open,ended parameters of public reno>n, >ealth, prestige 4n this sense, perhaps, the audienceFs decisions about the success of puberty ritualsthe affirmation of male gro>this a constrained decision, for there >ill be a tendency to agree that the boys ha"e indeed gro>n since that >as the purpose of the ritual Male gro>th is categorically assured; it is undermined only for indi"iduals 4t is Ano>n that rituals >ere carried out for all the initiates; it is not Ano>n if each has had satisfactory transactions >ith the spirit @n display, the initiates compete >ithin themsel"es for audience fa"or, for only the beautiful gi"e e"idence that their transactions >ere successful, and only some >ill page3**& Page **$ be admired This discrimination is also >itness to the relati"e po>erlessness of the secluded boys They may try to compel reciprocity in maAing ritual gardens and a tiny house for the female spirit, but >hether in turn she maAes them all large and beautiful depends on her #ollecti"i6ing 5ependency Whether people percei"e po>er as a piece of property, estate, a personal attribute, an ability, or an effect re"ealed in the reactions of others, po>er also has the status of a proposition Propositions e"oAe their conte.t, and in being conte.t,dependent are inherently contestable An e.treme e.ample is a proposition framed as a claim, for a claim deri"es its character from the ad"ersary conte.t of counterclaim #laims are being made in all these cases These may be based on information about facts or e.perience, as on Malo; or be seen as the outcome of a particular moment of re"elation, as in the Gimi ritual cycles that constantly supplant one proposition by another; or in the Paiela mode inhere in a transaction bet>een cult obser"er and obser"ed ;ut for po>er to be distinguished from other propositions, it must ha"e a content of a sort A notion of po>er as enablement D-ardon *$&(E directs us to the definition of internal capacities These may be made "isible through the acGuisition of Gualities DMaloE, the changing identity of body parts DGimiE, or a staged uncertainty about >hether particular "alues ha"e adhered to the body or not DPaielaE -or Malo, reputation is established through con"incing others of the standing of the Ano>ledge that one has processed; people thus e"aluate themsel"es as more or less con"incing processors in terms of their Ano>ing self Gimi create alternating uni"erses by s>itching the meanings attached to their se.uality; access to these meanings sets up an e"aluati"e di"ide bet>een men and >omen, pre, and post,initiates Paiela men define themsel"es as ha"ing a problem that Paiela >omen do not share: an acute bodily susceptibility to the moti"ations of others, to ho> they appear to their audience, for they Ano> their o>n capacities through this reflection 4n all three sets of practices, people are construed as depending upon others for Ano>ledge about their internal sel"es They are not in this sense the authors of it 4t is on the t>o 7ighlands cases that 4 no> concentrate Gimi men appear to "oice strong concepts of proprietorship and appropriation :et to metaphori6e those into the Aind of FcontrolF redolent of Western property o>nership >ould be Guite limiting 4mag, page3**$

Page *)' ining that people conceptuali6e po>er as an e.clusi"e possession leads to the conundrum >ith >hich 4 opened 4f a set of rituals is about the po>er men ha"e, they must also be about >omenFs lacA of po>er; or else the property analogy supposes that one must really ha"e the po>er and the other is either maAing mystifying claims or compensating for its lacA at an unreal le"el 4t cannot be the case that men ha"e e.clusi"e po>er, and that >omen also ha"e e.clusi"e po>er, as Gimi appear to claim The Western parado. is not, of course, a Melanesian one The actors may state that no> one se. and no> the other is all,encompassing, but >e miss the point if >e taAe sides: liAe flutes blo>n in pairs, the pair of statements offer a single proposition about the effects of encompassment @ne such effect is gro>th @n the part of Paiela men, by contrast, po>er lies in compelling others to maAe decisions fa"orable to oneself 7ere it could be said to e.ist in the control of others only in so far as transactions ha"e successful outcomes Po>er is thus measured against the risA of unsuccessful outcomes These t>o 7ighlands practices conseGuently differ as to the significant corollary: >here force has to be applied 4n the seGuences that ha"e been described, Paiela men force transactions on others, as do the boys on the Ginger Woman They ha"e to compel an engagement, or else there >ill be no producti"e outcome They must maAe her gro> them, be a gro>er on their behalf Gimi men and >omen, on the other hand, taAe gro>th for granted in these rituals: rather, men must force a differentiation bet>een the gro>er and the gro>n in order to e.tract the Dgro>nE product An important indigenous metaphor is singularity or boundedness, also an effect of encompassment Throughout 7ighlands societies, descent constructs of "arying degree of emphasis establish boundaries for groups of men >ho Ano> themsel"es as clans or lineages #lan life becomes collecti"e and public by definition 7ere in these cults, >ith their physical enclosures of houses and fences, 4 suggested that >e might imagine the procedures as creating instead a Fcollecti"e domesticityF, recalling its crucial Ainship and cross,se. interdependencies #ollecti"i6ation is effected through single,se. association ;ut at e"ery turn, through emphatic assertion or denial, dependency on the opposite se. is at issue The e.cluded se. is thus FpresentF Presence constructed through deliberate absence has been noted by a number of ethnographers 7erdt and Poole D*$&):*0E maAe the point nicely, citing Tu6inFs D*$&'; *$&)E studies The additional Guestion of >omenFs cooperation in apparently all,male enterprises >as initially raised by ?an ;aal D*$%(E in *$%' in page3*)' Page *)* the conte.t of LThe part of >omen in the marriage trade: obJects or beha"ing as obJectsML The opposite se. is not, ho>e"er, simply there in the sense that e"ery performance needs an audience, nor in the sense that leaders need follo>ers: they are there as "ital processors of the information the actors are seeAing about themsel"es The resultant interdependence 4 taAe as defining domesticity, hence the particularity of the gender designations of the actors They are, in e.ternal appearance, all,male Dor all,female in the case of the Gimi mortuary ritesE >ith reference to the crucially FabsentF se. +.panded, my suggestion >ould read that the cult conte.t collecti"i6es the condition of particularity 8elations that rest on the differentiated particularity of identities, as bet>een men and >omen, imply that the distincti"eness of the parties is ne"er submerged +ach is Ano>n by its separation from the other ;y contrast, the collective character of relationships is created through replicationthe gathering of persons of liAe se. +ach Ano>s him or herself in the image of similar others DSch>immer *$&1E :et neither the single,se. identity of the participants nor the replicable nature of their acti"ities can be taAen as gi"ens @n the contrary, interdependence of a domestic nature, in"ol"ing the di"ision of labor bet>een spouses and debts bet>een AinsfolA, denies autonomous identity to either se. alone A later chapter returns to the apparent contradiction bet>een a single,se.ed collecti"ity D>hich is ho> the multiplication,effect of persons is achie"edE and the fact that its concerns may be those of domestic Ainship 7ere 4 obser"e ho> the contradiction is established !nable to be present in person, the e.cluded se. is present in artifacts, and these may include artifacts that also appear as personal appendages A personFs o>n body parts can embody the other se. A manFs genitals may be re"ealed as artifacts of this Aind, as may the contents of a >omanFs reproducti"e tract or of her mind 4n order for the distincti"e gender of these artifacts, liAe the particular and distincti"e gender of the participants, to be made apparent, bounding mechanisms are necessary *6 Seculsion and the secrecy surrounding stretches of the ritual momentarily contain the participants and their acts 4 >ould also suggest that the body is constructed for a duration as a parallel unitary and singular entity *%

A personFs outer sAin can be organi6ed, so to speaA, decorated and doctored, to produce a single effect, to indicate unambiguous masculinity or femininity Actors present themsel"es through a single image, as all,male or all,female The indi"idual body is then percei"ed as at once page3*)* Page *)) singular and momentarily total in its identity; it follo>s that the replication of liAe bodies multiplies this effect but does not modify it Modifications taAe place internally @ne of the best Ano>n Melanesian a.ioms must be that appearances decei"e, and the unitary identity sets the stage for the re"elation that it co"ers or contains >ithin itself other identities At certain moments in the Ainds of re"elatory seGuences described here, a separation may be seen bet>een the bodyFs en"eloping sAin and its internal substances 4n gender terms, the single se. figure >ill ha"e parts or appendages FbelongingF to the opposite se. These are imagined as encompassed or contained >ithin the single body, for it is only a unitary form that can appear to FcontainF an internal differentiation of this Aind A male body encompasses female parts This proposition then prompts the further conceptuali6ation of the female parts taAing a male form, continuous >ith, rather than discontinuous from, the en"eloping male body The unitary perception is thus highly conte.tuali6ed, liAe the deliberate conceptuali6ation of single,se. collecti"ities in all,male or all,female e"ents The corporeal body is presented as e.clusi"ely male or female for specific ritual effect: persons are not a.iomatically concei"ed by these 7ighlanders as single se. 8ather, an alternation of se.ual conditions, t>o modes of gender constitution, is displayed 4n the same >ay as these rites deliberately Ju.tapose the separation of particular identities from one another along >ith the replication of liAe identities, so they Ju.tapose different relational perceptions of gender 7omomorphism bet>een persons, or bet>een a personFs constituent parts, produces a same,se. relation, >hile dimorphism produces a cross,se. relation +ither relation may be made e"ident >ithin or beyond the body A same,se. identity, then, is effected as a deliberate contri"ance 4n fact, in those societies >ith puberty rites for both se.es or rites celebrating homose.ual nurture, these are the occasions at >hich the androgynous or cross,se. character of personal identity is re"ealed as a premise underlying efficacy and interaction #laims of all,maleness or all,femaleness are transient and temporary definitions of po>er 4n the Gimi case, claims of all,maleness are laid to po>ers of fertility that at other times may be conceptuali6ed as all,female Men momentarily construe themsel"es as totally responsible for reproduction by encompassing e.ogenous po>ers To us it is a parado. that men should flaunt their maleness by page3*)) Page *)0 re"ealing that they contain >ithin themsel"es >hat is also female This seems a confusion of properties Western formulations of identity of a unitary Aind >ould lead one to e.pect that men become more male by associating >ith things definable as e.clusi"ely male; an intrinsic attribute DmalenessE >ould be elaborated >ith e.tra attributes of the same nature Dmore malenessE The more remo"ed from female matters, on this Western model, the more permanently male is the identity: hence the interpretations of male initiation seGuences >hich taAe as their culmination the achie"ement of manhood Da single,se. social identity that finally matches an intrinsic physiological oneE This could not be further from the Melanesian case There is an additional point 4f it is the bodyFs capacities >hich are made Ano>n, then the e"idence for these must lie in the effecti"eness of action 4n Melanesian terms, this implies interaction While separation marAs off one se. as distincti"ely male against the otherFs femaleness, each maAes itself Ano>n through the nature of the transactions bet>een them That is, the specifically male contribution to this or that enterprise is created through its effects on female enterprise Paiela transactions thus depend on the differentiation of the partners, or there is no effect @r the effects may be the "ery constitution of the opposite se., as >hen Gimi men compel childbirth: >omenFs capacity to gi"e birth to the appropriate offspring is proof of male efficacy in the matter The presence of the other se. remains crucial, then, not simply as a cogniti"e de"ice, that >hat is male is defined by >hat is female, but in terms of demonstrating e.ternal efficacy and thus by the same toAen internal capability

;arrett found startling the suggestion that se.ual differences cannot be Ano>n in ad"ance Dsee p 6(E 4 repeat her Guotation of Adams D*$&':&%E: FF>hat has to be grasped is, precisely, the production of differences through systems of representation; the >orA of representation produces differences that cannot be Ano>n in ad"ance Nemphasis remo"edO L Gimi ideas appear sustained by the premise that the differences bet>een the se.es cannot be Ano>n in ad"ance of the interaction bet>een them The Paiela cult, ho>e"er, presents a "ariant case 7ere se.ual difference is Ano>n in ad"ance and is not redefined but itself made producti"e through the transactions bet>een male and female As >e shall see, there are concomitant cultural contrasts in the >ay transactions are constructed 4t >ill, in fact, turn out to be significant >hether, as far as the se.es are concerned, the differentiation bet>een page3*)0 Page *)1 them is regarded as prior to their interaction or as constituted by it The one schema creates an.iety about their producti"e combination Dgro>thE, the other about their producti"e separation Dcreati"ity, birthE 5istinctions must be made D7arrison *$&(b:1*$E Some 7ighlands gender constructs taAe as a starting point, as it >ere, that >hen they transact >ith one another each se. retains its discrete identity and Jointly creates productsthe children and food they gro>n>hich carry the identity of both sources, ne>ly combined Although this interpretation comes from my understanding of 7agen, it >ould also apply to Paiela The discrete identity of men and >omen Dthere is no ambiguity about se.ual ascriptionE is the basis for the transactions bet>een them: the one is not a.iomatically encompassed by the other 4n such a conte.t, >here the transacting entities are by their prior nature already differentiated, their transactional engagement has to be forced Acti"ity mobili6es the differentiation and maAes it producti"e 4f the transaction is successful, it >ill ha"e a productin the Paiela boysF DhusbandsFE case their o>n gro>th as >ell as the gardens and children that husband and >ife produce bet>een them Such interse.ual transactions conseGuently result in an outcome that combines the >orA and identity of both, and in this sense has a dual or multiple and thus cross,se. character 4n turn the reproducti"e construction of the Joint identity of such products taAes the separate se.ual identities DFmaleF, FfemaleFE of the sources or origins of the products as gi"en: they are combined only as the result of the transactions themsel"es Paiela FdescentF formation is pertinent here Although the consanguineal units that intermarry and maAe e.changes are cognatically structured, ;iersacA maAes it clear that the separate origins of the intermarrying groups remain rele"ant: the unit that no> regards itself as FoneF is a Ltransactional corporationL D;iersacA *$&1:*)0E, *& predicated on sustaining internal cooperation The original groups are combined but not conflated 7o>e"er, Gimi gender constructs, and this may also be true of 5aulo, elaborate the premise of androgyny TaAen as gi"en is a conflated cross,se. identity 8eproductionthe har"ested crops >omen nurture, the children to >hom they gi"en birthis achie"ed through momentarily distinguishing the product from its source The distinction >orAs through gender The FmalenessF of children >hich emerges from the FfemalenessF of mothers, deri"es from the fact that it is a male feat to ha"e effected the separation at all As Gillison argues, the female characteristics that men appropriate ha"e become male in the decisi"e act of being detached from >omen Separations thus occupy a different page3*)1 Page *)( symbolic place by contrast >ith those of 7agen and Paiela The separations are crucial at particular conJunctions in the staging of effectsas in effecting birthbut once separation is accomplished, the distinction bet>een male and female agency collapses, each being presented as a form of the other 4n the 7agen2Paiela instance, the separate identities of the sources remain as a pair; they are merged not in each other but only in the product of the relationship bet>een them That multiply,composed relationship is thereby made producti"e, and the androgynous product is thus differently constituted from either of the sources taAen alone Gimi Dand 5auloME sources of gro>th are not paired in the same >ay @n the contrary, gro>th is taAen for granted as an effect of encompassment +ncompassment is made e"ident in turn as a same,se. state 4n one mode, it may be regarded as emphatically female The FspontaneousF gro>th that so many commentators report as a focus of attention in the case of females is e"idence of this homomorphic capacity 4ts male counterpart is creati"ity, the spirituali6ing effect of menFs association >ith the spirit >orld, a.iomatically producti"e of both health and >elfare 8eleased from the female, the Lmale soul had the capacity parthenogenetically to bring forth e"ery Aind of lifeL DGillison *$&':1'E 4t is in cross,se. conte.ts that force is necessary to induce the complementary effect: males ha"e to be forced to gro> in their bodies, as females gro>; females ha"e to be forcibly inJected >ith spiritual essence in order to produce life, as males

gi"e birth to spirit +ncompassment imagery thus construes sources of gro>th and creati"ity as all,male Dmale encompassing female parts in a FmaleF formE or as all,female Dfemale encompassing male parts in a FfemaleF formE That imagery also indicates the form that separation >ill taAe The momentary reali6ation of opposed single se. identities appears as container distinguished from contained Thus either container or contained can be seen as at once distinct from and merging >ith the other, a conJunction of dimorphic and homomorphic possibilities ,nstruments of androgyny1 Suppose in some nightmarish moment >e >ere forced to maAe up our minds about another 7ighlands conundrumnot >ho has po>er but >ho is male and >ho is female 4mages from a Guite different area of Papua /e> Guinea are suggesti"e in this regard 4n the course of analy6ing the art of the Abelam in the Middle SepiA, -orge D*$%0:*&$E obser"es that the paintings in Guestion are not La picture or representation of anything in the natural or spirit >orld, page3*)( Page *)6 rather Nthey areO about the relationship bet>een things Nemphasis remo"edO L *$ The facades of menFs houses are co"ered >ith multiple designs representing male clan spirits and other beings; the figures ha"e "arious appendages Though graphically they appear similar, Abelam e.egesis distinguishes some as breasts and some as penises This raises an initial Guery about the meaning of the apparent phallus, >hich -orge concludes is an organ of nourishment )' ;ut >hat is imagined in this fused representation of nurture, >ith its male and female elements, and >hat Aind of relation or identity is being claimed bet>een the t>oM 4t is almost as though male and female >ere "ariants of one another ;ut are types of nurture being differentiated or conflatedM There are t>o stages here 4t is necessary to Ano> >hat maleness means in the configuration >ithin >hich it is presented, and thus >hat Aind of relationship is supposed >ith female elements :et if the houses are decorated >ith figures >hose appendages can be read as both breasts and phalluses, then >hat is FmaleF and >hat is FfemaleF in the first placeM 4s the phallus a male breastM 4s it to emphasi6e its maleness or femaleness that the breast is imagined as a female phallusM)* /o> this eGui"ocation is not simply a piece of SepiA esoterica; it runs through much gender symbolism in the 7ighlands and in Melanesia at large MenFs houses may be eGuated >ith >ombs Penile bleeding may be identified as menstrual The flutes men blo> in their secret cults may be described as FmothersF or as F>i"esF or be paired as male and female; 7erdt D*$&):&&E gi"es a number of e.amples At one point Gillison D*$&':*6%,*%%, n *$E obser"es that the Gimi flute, FmotherFs penisF, can also refer to motherFs breast Where male flute pairs are gi"en a same,se. designation, do >e imagine t>o brothers as t>o breastsM To pursue the case of flute symbolism, 4 note that 7erdt suggests the instruments are thus erotici6ed, and 5undes D*$%6E that their femini6ation is in the interest of sub"erting heterose.ual dependency by homose.ual independence )) :et to conclude that men >ish to li"e >ithout recourse to >omen, or that >hat is at issue is male control o"er female reproducti"e po>er Dmen simply encompass >ithin their affairs things to do >ith >omen, and thus appropriate themE, encounters that original difficulty: ho> is it made Ano>n >hat is distincti"ely male and >hat >as imagined as male and female before the act of appropriationM 9e>is, >riting about another SepiA people to the far >est of Abelam, asAs ho> >e come to recogni6e representations of other things 7e considers the phenomenon of penis,bleeding )0 page3*)6 Page *)% To see it as symbolic depends on our choosing to classify penile bleeding apart from menstrual bleeding The idea >e ha"e of menstrual bleeding is that it can be applied correctly only to something >hich happens to >omen This is an essential attribute, an intension, of our definition or understanding of menstruation; real or true menstruation can only happen to >omen Therefore male bleeding must be apparent menstruation, symbolic or mimic menstruation D*$&':**)E 4n >hat sense, then, might >e understand real or true and therefore also FsymbolicF gender designationsM Are the SepiA figures >ith their breasts2phalluses a mimicry of one or the otherM @r do they embody some "ariety of bise.ualism, as entities of ambiguous or fused se.ual statusM 4s an androgynous ancestor depicted on a male cult house the sign of "ictory, that men really ha"e >on their battle o"er >omen in encompassing all forms of nurture >ithin themsel"esM

All such Guestions >ould reGuire the assumption that breasts belong to >omen or that phalluses are the property of men 7o>e"er, if people say that phalluses >ere stolen from >omen or if a phallus is treated liAe a fetus, it is not at all clear that >e can be so certain in our e"aluation on the MelanesiansF behalf +"en if >e >ere to allo> that phalluses are male, >hen they are offered to >omen Din their physiological embodiment or in the form of bamboo tubesE are they being offered as instruments of masculinity; or >ill they change in the process into something else Dinto fetuses perhapsE; or is a thing, as Sch>immer D*$%1E argued in another conte.t, being rendered to >omen that belongs to >omen any>ayM 4n >hich case, is a phallus on a man some >omanFs FpropertyFM 4t is clear that our metaphors of possession ha"e e.hausted themsel"es Were >e to dra> on metaphors of interaction, the formulas might seem less tortuous Perhaps persons gi"e parts of themsel"es to others or yield to others >hat is already o>ned by them, because it is o>ed to them A transactional idiom might afford a >ay out of the conundrum And that goes for notions of possession in relation to oneFs bodily parts, >here property idioms maAe for such difficulties in symbolic analysis As Westerners >e feel, as 9e>is remarAed, that >e should be able to identify things by their attributes: to decide >hether flutes are FmaleF or FfemaleF 4t is not necessary that they are one thing or another D>e can en"isage a dual or ambiguous identityE but >e do imagine that identity inheres in the thing, as it does in people 7o>e"er, the Melanesian material indicates that Ano>ledge D>hat is made apparent as male or femaleE cannot be deri"ed from inspection alone )1 4den, page3*)% Page *)& tity is an outcome of interaction :et stated liAe that the conclusion seems trite; let me therefore gi"e it some cultural substance 4f people define their relations through transactions >ith one another, then perhaps among the things that the SepiA characters display, >ith their dual appendages, is the fact of transaction 4n the timeless dimension of a portrait Dto borro> from 7arrison *$&1E appears the figure of an interchange bet>een elements that simultaneously indicate the relation bet>een them @ne can supplement this suggestion sociologically, for cult ritual associated >ith the menFs house is in"ariably conducted bet>een t>o partiesbet>een sponsors and their supporters>ith alternate initiation classes in specific reciprocity )( Androgyny personifies the relation created by a transaction, the Ju.taposition of elements that in the dimension of time >ere first separated then Joined The indi"isible Gimi flute is such an androgynous instrument FMaleF and FfemaleF at best discriminate points in a process, ho> it is played and >hat is emitted, or rather, >ho plays it and >ho is emitted Gimi symboli6ation establishes the male or female character of a person as an incident, an e"ent, a historical moment created in time Such character does not inhere in attributes of a fi.ed Aind, in the e.clusi"e possession of particular items, not e"en in possession of genitals, for the origins of those are ambiguous, al>ays the result of past transactions What differentiates men and >omen, then, is not the maleness or femaleness of their se.ual organs but #hat they do #ith them Whether a tube turns out to be a penis or a birth canal depends on ho> it is and has been acti"ated And ho> an organ is acti"ated is sho>n in its effects, >hether it >orAs as container or contained <no>ledge about this is therefore simultaneously Ano>ledge about internal capacity or enablement, and about e.ternal efficacy in interaction >ith others At one Juncture in his o"er"ie> of the di"erse approaches through >hich anthropologists ha"e e.amined assertions of single se. identity in male initiation rites, <eesing D*$&):))E dra>s attention to >hat is often taAen as the clinching rationale: L>hat men produceas >omen cannotis men Noriginal emphasisO L 4f the assumption is that liAe must produce liAe, then this is a profound misreading of male creati"ity #ertainly it >ould not hold for Gimi @n the contrary, one could say that men ha"e to be FproducedF by >omen because the >hole difference bet>een men and >omen lies in their respecti"e enablements in produc, page3*)& Page *)$ tion Men breaA a>ay from the endo,anthropophagic cycle of >omenFs nurture They are, in this sense, produced only by >omen: they do not themsel"es produce in liAe form 8ather, they transform themsel"es into the agents >ho coerce >omen to so produce Dand thus produce them as agentsE What >omen gro> they create A drastically differentiated capacity lays the basis for male identity

#oercing >omen to gi"e birth seems to me a "ery different statement from saying that men control >omenFs reproducti"e po>ers 4t also abandons the parado. of the po>er of the >eaA This chapter opened >ith a reference to those analyses of male cults that turn on the idea that >omen are po>erful because of their femaleness :et >omen are supposedly >eaA for the same reason 7erdt notes the Lculturally constituted contradictionL that LmenFs mundane idioms tacitly assume that >omen are inherently po>erful because of their "ery femalenessL D7erdt *$&*:*%E The contradiction only arises if it is assumed that >omen are intrinsically FfemaleF and that men ha"e to be established as intrinsically FmaleF -or Gimi, ultimately >hat differentiates the se.es is not things possessed Se.ual organs can appear androgynous, liAe the flutes2bamboo containers, at once breast and penis, both hollo> and penetrant They do not ha"e a unitary character in themsel"es: such a character is determined by ho> they are used, caused, or completed by the opposite se. Male and female se.ual organs Fin themsel"esF, then, stand for a composite relation: if one is male and the other female, it is because one is completed by or deri"ed from the other They do not in themsel"es indicate a differentiated thing; instead difference is constituted relationally by menFs and >omenFs respecti"e agency The one gro>s, the other is gro>n; the one is forced to be creati"e, the other creates Women gro> in their >ombs >hat men gro> in their cult enclosures; men maAe >omen yield the penis,child that they thus separate from themsel"es Gimi men are not afraid of ha"ing their masculinity s>allo>ed up, en"eloped by >omen; the "ery fact that they are en"eloped and not the en"eloper sa"es them from absorption Their fear is not to be released at the proper time, for >ere they not released they >ould no longer be male Again, it is at the point of interaction that a singular identity is established Gatens D*$&0E argued that >omen are different from men because their bodies are different; e"en if >omen FdoF the same things as men, the conte.t pro"ided by their o>n bodies genderi6es their acts -or Gimi at least, it >ould be truer to suggest that it is the page3*)$ Page *0' other >ay around 4t is because >omen FdoF things differently from men, because they e"ince different capacities in the >ay they act, that their bodies are gendered :et 7erdtFs supposition might seem to fit cases of the 7agen2Paiela type, >here se.ual differentiation is taAen for granted 7o>e"er, it is clear that e"en here men and >omen do not so much possess se.ual Gualities as attributes as deploy their gender capabilities in transacting >ith them The maleness or femaleness of the obJects of transaction comes from their source in the actions of men and >omen 4f the capabilities of the se.es are taAen for granted, ne"ertheless their interaction has to be deliberately promoted, and this gi"es a political dimension to menFs and >omenFs relationship The concurrent political dimension of Paiela cult acti"ity is, in fact, best understood through its analogue >ith ceremonial e.change, a topic de"eloped in the follo>ing chapters ;iersacA offers a striAing depiction of Paiela domestic sociality >hich brings us bacA to the collecti"e conte.t of Ano>ledge: LThat sector of FinsideF Nthe realm of human actionO that Paiela designate Fgardens and housesF signifies a relationship and its moral connotations, the relationship of nonunion and insularity and the immorality of FselfishnessFL D*$&1:*01E 4n her terms, the in>ard,looAing character of domestic relations contrasts >ith the out>ard,looAing character of households in the public domain, >here collecti"e acti"ityincluding the cooperation at the basis of consanguineal groupsis interdomestic, >here pigs are not eaten but e.changed She stresses the noncommunicati"e nature of producti"e acti"ity: Lthe only relationship a human being can establish >ith gardens is a relationship of noncommunication @n a daily basis the producer operates alone and in silenceL D*$&1:*)*E The transactions by >hich >i"es Fgro>F their husbands, and husbands Fbind the bloodF of >i"es in conception, are also co"ert and secluded; they >ould fall into the Paiela class of noncommunicati"e relations )6 4f the bachelor rites do indeed collecti"i6e such domestic relations, >e may comment on the significance of a communicational element in the accompanying omen,taAing The boys attempt to communicate >ith the spirit >oman, to compel her to re"eal >hether she >ill gro> them or not They force a "isible, o"ert sign from her )% This communicatinal possibility in the collecti"i6ation of other>ise FsilentF intradomestic relations is the central achie"ement of the ritual 4n their dependency upon others to e"ince capacities in the self, Paiela, Guite as much as Gimi, locate the sources of their internal efficacy beyond themsel"es The sources do not constitute some other page3*0'

Page *0* realm or domain but another type of person -or FmenF they lie in the acts of F>omenF These sources are not to be controlled or o"ercome but sustained in order to gi"e perpetual e"idence of this "ery efficacy They are at once a point of origin and a reference point for demonstrating subseGuent historic moments Thus they may also be rendered as FappropriatedF They are perpetually preser"ed since they are reGuired to elicit, in WagnerFs phrase, the bodyFs capacities, to e.ternali6e and maAe Ano>n its internal composition ;ut the difference bet>een internal DintrasomaticE and e.ternal De.trasomaticE relations has itself to be made Ano>n, and this is done through the imagery of replication, through the collecti"e character of the e"ents by >hich >hat is made Ano>n about one body is repeated for many 4ndeed, disparate as they might seem, the three ethnographic cases addressed in this chapter sho> parallels in their practices of Ano>ledge 4nformation, se.ual organs, and a capacity to gro> are all made Ano>n or "alued by reference to their source :et the source lies beyond the person >ho displays it, by the same toAen that its efficacy must be registered in another -or a Malo man acGuiring the idiosyncratic beha"ior of another, "alue lies in the origin of that beha"ior in another The donor does not lose >hat he gi"es a>ay 4n the instance of Gimi reproducti"e creati"ity, "iolent e.traction is imagined as gain and loss :et here, too, the original source D>omenFs possession of the flutesE seems to be capable of regression or regeneration Dnamely, return to another moment in timeE, such that loss or gain is e"er only temporary We may put the point another >ay These Melanesian cases delineate the impact >hich interaction has on the inner person The bodyFs features are a register, a site of that interaction #onseGuently, >hat is dra>n out of the person are the social relationships of >hich it is composed: it is a microcosm of relations 4n this sense are the capacities of the body re"ealed And if the body is composed of relations, if it sho>s the imprint of past encounters, then the relations are not in a state of stasis A>areness of them implies that they must be attended to These internal relations must either be further built upon or must be taAen apart and fresh relationships instigated The Ainds of initiation ritual to >hich 4 ha"e been referring stage Just the a>areness or acAno>ledgment of the necessity of so taAing further action, and of the possibility of doing so Although 4 refer to the body, the effect of the rites is to bring the body to consciousness and, in the Melanesian idiom, to sho> the impact of peopleFs minds upon one another 4ntention and moti"ation page3*0* Page *0) ha"e physiological conseGuences The person is "ulnerable, so to speaA, both to the bodily disposition of others to>ards him or her and to their >ills and desires -or there is more to the Melanesian FpersonF than that analytical figment of the anthropological imagination that supposes the social person is a locus of roles, a constellation of statuses 4n the Melanesian image, a series of e"ents is being re"ealed in the body, >hich becomes thereby composed of the specific historical actions of social others: >hat people ha"e or ha"e not done to or for one )& The person appropriates its o>n history The practices of Ano>ledge to >hich 4 ha"e been alluding, and especially that people are construed as dependent upon others for Ano>ledge about themsel"es, do not simply reside in the personal disco"eries of reflecti"e indi"iduals: these are not e.istential possibilities that could apply any>here 4 refer specifically to the manner in >hich the cultural con"entions of these societies present people >ith the effects of their actions And this is not in turn simply a Guestion of intersubJecti"e dramatics, the personae that people proffer, the playing of their FrolesF A distincti"e feature of these Melanesian practices is the elicitation of Ano>ledge about inner bodily and mental constitution A set of internal relations are e.ternali6ed This may be communicated as a condition shared collecti"ely, but the condition itself is a particularistic dependency on critical social others, made manifest in the obJects of their encounters 4f the indi"idual person, then, is the site at >hich its o>n interactions >ith others is registered, then that supposition on MelanesiansF part must in turn shape their conduct of relations Succinctly put, it gi"es social relations the form Ano>n in the literature as gift e.change page3*0) Page *00

6 WorA: +.ploitation At 4ssue

-eminist concerns >ith the ideology of se.ual identity and feminist anthropologistsF concern >ith the nature of the political,domestic di"ide >ould not ha"e Guite their critical edge if it >ere not for >hat seems one per"asi"e and near uni"ersal fact of life: the apparently persistent misrecognition of >omenFs >orA as someho> less than >orA +ither >omenFs labors are hidden from sight or else, >here they are "isible, do not gi"e >omen the social scope that menFs acti"ities enJoy and may >ell be o"ershado>ed by other criteria of public importance Such e"aluations inhere in cultural arrangements and classifications Since these are often seen as >orAing to the interests of men, the corollary is the supposition that in gaining more than >omen from such arrangements, directly or indirectly, men e.ploit >omenFs labor This is certainly ho> the /e> Guinea 7ighlands has appeared to outside obser"ers Thus 9eacocA D*$&*:)$1E can suggest that FFthe rituali6ation of se. hostility in highland /e> Guinea is the acting out on an ideological le"el of the reality that men are competing >ith >omen for control of >hat >omen produce,L and cites me as ha"ing made clear for 7agen ho> Lcontrol of >omenFs labor is enormously important to men L 4n turning to the issue, 4 >ish to accomplish a number of things The first is to bring feminist critiGues to bear on the earlier discussion about po>er from their perception of the FrealityF of material conflict This is important, second, because these critiGues contain a pluralist criticism of the anthropological propensity to taAe culture for granted A similar page3*00 Page *01 criticism >as apparent in the theori6ing o"er the nature of the political,domestic di"ide 7ere 4 consider this di"ide in relation to indigenous classifications of acti"ities that do not on the surface present themsel"es as e"aluations -or instance, the concepts of F>ealthF or FgiftF do not immediately appear discriminatory; >hat appears potentially discriminatory is menFs and >omenFs access to them 7o>e"er, for the /e> Guinea 7ighlands, including 7agen, an important attacA has been made on those culturalist formulations that fail to grasp the ideological status of Fgift e.changeF and its accompanying mechanism of FreciprocityF Third, my interest in this debate stems from the use that 4 nonetheless >ish to maAe of the concept of the gift 4t is one of my fictionsto be deployed in its relational definition "is,P,"is its counterpart, the commodity The pair of terms pro"ide an a.is for considering a range of contrasts bet>een Melanesian societies and the societies of the Western >orld from >hich the analytical constructs of social science in the first place deri"e @ne may suppose the a.is as a difference bet>een root metaphors: if in a commodity economy things and persons assume the social form of things+ then in a gift economy they assume the social form of persons Dadapted from Gregory *$&):1*E -ourth, this fictional di"isionas though one could thereby characteri6e >hole cultures and >hole societiesenables one to marshall together a number of disparate theoretical issues that ha"e made their appearance in the preceding three chapters They ha"e been loosely tied to a running commentary on property assumptions At the risA of repetition, 4 spell them out as the specific ramifications of a commodity metaphor Thus, in a rather ad hoc manner, 4 ha"e asserted that this or that set of concepts does not apply to the Melanesian material They include the follo>ing: the idea that persons can be less than social beings; nature as a constraint and as a resource; the Aind of unitary identity implied in se.,role theory; attributes appropriated as though they >ere property o>ned; things being regarded as ha"ing intrinsic properties; the purpose of domination being control, and so on These can all be considered refractions of a specific Western root metaphor They belong to a culture that grasps the form of things through imagining that things e.ist in themsel"es: the use to >hich they are put must al>ays entail some Aind of relation >ith their DresistantE nature @r, one that regards the >orA of society and culture as gi"ing social or cultural "alue to things and persons, much as the use "alue of goods and products page3*01 Page *0( circulates only >hen this has also been turned into a marAet e.change "alue DSahlins *$%6E @r, one that correspondingly construes persons as commodities, both ha"ing an intrinsic "alue and establishing "alues for themsel"es in circulation among others ;arnett and Sil"ermanFs D*$%$:%$&'E e.position of Western notions of personhood, after Schneider D*$6&E, dra>s the contrast in terms of FsubstanceF and FcontractF

The sociali6ed, internally controlled Western person must emerge as a microcosm of the domesticating process by >hich natural resources are put to cultural use 7ence the person is a homologue of society thought of as a set of rules or con"entions Dchap )E The only internal relation here is the >ay a personFs parts FbelongF to him or herself @ther relationships bear in from the outside A personFs attributes are thus modified through e.ternal pressure, as are the attributes of things, but they remain intrinsic to his or her identity A shoe is a shoe, to taAe a famous e.ample, ho>e"er much it costs, and >hether or not it is e"en marAetable at all, because of the >ay it is >orn +.trinsic modification thus transforms or controls intrinsic attributes but does not challenge their status as the definiti"e property of the entity in Guestion The refractions of this commodity metaphor suggest an image of persons standing in respect of their o>n sel"es as original proprietors of themsel"es Whereas properties FbelongF to a thing in a definitional sense, in the case of persons FbelongingF is imagined as an acti"e proprietorship Persons o>n their minds as >ell as their bodies, and their minds turn the proprietor of his or her o>n actions also into the author of them This unitary potential demarcates the proper singularity of such authorship, in parallel to the Findi"idualF as a real, concrete entity 4ndeed, it becomes possible to slide from conceptuali6ing a subJect e.ercising control o"er obJects at his or her disposal, including personal capabilities such as se.ualityoften taAen as the property par excellence that in its out>ard orientation should be deployed through the >ill of the possessor of itto a society or culture regarded as turning the intrinsic properties of thingsconcei"ed culturally as utilitiesinto obJects of con"entional >orth ;oth the capabilities a"ailable to the person and the resources a"ailable to society are construed as FthingsF ha"ing a prior natural or utilitarian "alue in themsel"es And persons in turn, as indi"iduals, comprise Just such a resource for society To control or e.ploit this intrinsic "alue is to raise Guestions about the authorship or proprietorship of the social or e.trinsic "alue thereby created page3*0( Page *06 As a deri"ation from the Western concept of the commodity, these refractions recei"e most e.plicit anthropological discussion for the e"idence they afford of a type of political economy Thus it is in the Lcapitalist mode of production,L under the conditions of marAet e.change, that any commodity, once it plays the role of NanO eGui"alent Nin e.changeO, seems to possess in itself the capacity to measure the "alue of other commodities The FeGui"alent formF of a commodity does not re"eal the essential "alue D>hich is a social reality, human labourE; it turns the "alue into a characteristic of things DGodelier *$%%:*(6, original emphasisE 4ndeed, the contrast bet>een these Western2Melanesian root metaphors is usefully concei"ed in terms of different political,economy regimes This brings us bacA to the feminist critiGues The final obser"ation to maAe, ho>e"er, is that >e are brought bacA in such a >ay as to reali6e ho> much those critiGues participate in the constructions they seeA to undermine They are branches themsel"es of the commodity root metaphor, as they ha"e to be This is true >hether they are, so to speaA, e.tensions of the roots or >hether they adopt a specific nonpositi"ist, nonbourgeois stance, in >hich case they are liAe the canopy of a tree apparently separated from but in fact feeding its root system belo> 4 cannot, of course, remo"e myself from this radi.: 4 merely occupy another position This is a position from >hich the Western metaphor can be made "isible and from >hich it appears as an in"erse of that attributed here to Melanesian cultures 4 thus attempt a parallel in"ersion bet>een FWesternF and FMelanesianF cultures through e.tending an internal contrast Dcommodity and gift being concepts deri"ed from a commodity economyE to t>o cultural forms e.ternal to one another 4n my account, the concept of the FgiftF is hea"ily dependent on its antonym, the FcommodityF The opposition >ould not maAe sense in the 7agen language What 4 call gifts 7ageners call by a term that >e >ould other>ise happily translate as FthingsF ;ut that opens rather than closes the analytical >orA: the Guestion is >hat Ainds of things are they, and, from our perspecti"e, >hat social form they taAe 5iscerning +Guality -eminist anthropologists >ho ha"e e.tended the debate o"er political and domestic domains into considering the economics of subordination page3*06

Page *0% properly challenge the manner in >hich one adopts indigenous formulations as analytical ones :et at the same time, it is important to maintain a critical distance on their arguments This necessitates constructing a position, as 4 ha"e tried to do, from >hich their o>n assumptions are apparent 4t is significant to the o"erall concerns of this booA that from among the di"erse refractions of the commodity metaphor many such arguments ultimately turn on certain conceptuali6ations of property The same obser"ation >as made in the pre"ious chapter >ith respect to po>er 4t is some>hat mischie"ous to repeat it, in so far as those >riters >ho dra> on political,economy theory e.plicitly offer critiGues of economic categories such as Fpri"ate propertyF, >hich are properly taAen as specific to commodity production in capitalist economies * The critiGues include the general proposition that property is a relation, not a thing, to be analy6ed as a relation bet>een persons >ith respect to things ) The FideaF of property is thus not treated as self,e"ident at all 4t is an impertinence, therefore, to suggest that such critiGues might in turn incorporate une.amined property assumptions /e"ertheless, this is also >hat one must e.pect 4n so far as the critiGues >ere de"eloped in the first place to scrutini6e the social relations of capitalist economy, they >ere internal to the economic system under scrutiny We should not be so surprised after all at the continuity The continuity 4 no> >ish to maAe e"ident lies in the manner in >hich agents and their actions are assumed to be structured My remarAs >ould be less impertinent if they did Justice to the debates o"er the nature of e.ploitation in noncapitalist, nonclass social systems; 4 refer the reader, for instance, to ModJesAaFs D*$&)E o"er"ie> of ineGuality in 7ighlands societies 4t is particularly in arguments about the e.ploitation of labor0 that one encounters a stubborn Western assumption about the natural proprietorship of persons 4n any attempt to characteri6e the differences bet>een "arious Melanesian modes of sociality, it is to my mind an interference that the >ay these issues ha"e sometimes been aired has not only, and necessarily, incorporated certain Western premises about social action but that these ha"e taAen a property form :et an important ca"eat must be entered here +"aluation, as opposed to interpretation, reGuires a self,conscious separation bet>een analytical and indigenous formulations 1 The concerns introduced in chapter 1 underline the point An analytical interest in distinguishing political and domestic domains found a mirror in the myriad >ays in page3*0% Page *0& >hich indigenous Melanesian domaining mechanisms are established This is partly and Guite properly because the analytical impetus comes largely from >ithin anthropological theory itself, and such theory responds to the ideational constructs of the cultural systems it addresses 7ere it is interpreti"e in nature 7o>e"er, the feminist anthropological argument that claims o"er the products of labor are crucial to the e"aluation of se.ual eGuality does not, o"ertly at least, rest on attempts to find Justification for the analytical categories in the symbolic systems of those being studied 4n the >orA of those >ho align themsel"es >ith Mar.ist,feminists, ( the theoretical basis for analysis lies outside anthropology and lies instead in a theory of social action not itself affected by situations for >hich there is no indigenous counterpart theory The main strength of a Mar.ist,feminist perspecti"e for anthropologists, then, is that it pro"ides grounds for e.ogenous e"aluation Gi"en that a principal goal of feminist e"aluation is the degree of eGuality that particular systems allo> men and >omen, the search is for measures that can be uni"ersally applied, and relations of production prompt such a measure 6 Such relations are concretely interpreted as resting on the nature of access to producti"e resources, control o"er labor, and Jurisdiction o"er the products of labor /one of these concepts needs rest on indigenous models and none reGuires them in order to remain useful 4t is, therefore, a specification of and not a denigration of the debates o"er eGuality that they incorporate une.amined property assumptions These are une.amined simply because they are incorporated as taAen,for,granted facts about human e.istence @ne >ell established debate concerns the e.tent to >hich other>ise egalitarian societies do or do not sustain ineGualities bet>een the se.es The debate has been especially "igorous apropos hunter,gatherer economies and is >orth considering briefly here 7unter,gatherer societies ha"e engaged Western obser"ers by "irtue of their apparent egalitarianism -eminist anthropologists ha"e >ith some force Joined the debate o"er the appropriateness of this designation 4t is my o>n "ie> that >hat dri"es us to contemplate these systems as egalitarian is one unusual feature: contemporary hunter,gatherer communities contrast >ith the maJority of the >orldFs societies in that

claims on persons are effected through claims on ser"ices rather than claims on goods They lacA property relations; they also lacA the mediatory form of gifts Ties bet>een persons are not constructed through the control of assets and of persons as though they >ere assets, and page3*0& Page *0$ >ealth cannot store labor; obJects do not become gifts in the sense in >hich one >ould use the term in Melanesia ?alue lies in things being instruments of ser"ice relations bet>een persons What is confusing about these systems, then, is that ineGualities are structured neither through the o>nership of assets nor through the transaction of gifts This does not mean that ineGualities do not e.ist The point is made e.plicitly in the debates on male,female relations in these systems #ollier and 8osaldo D*$&*E demonstrate ho> marriage, affinal obligations, and the di"ision of labor bet>een the se.es set up asymmetric relations bet>een men and >omen, although they allo> men to assert a strenuous eGuality bet>een themsel"es People e.ert all sorts of claims on the acts and actions of others, including >orA in the form of ser"ice due to another There are ineGualities, then, in claims on such labor, but although >e may refer to it as labor, it is not embodied in property or gifts #ollier and 8osaldo thus suggest that such asymmetries in relations do not ha"e to be metaphori6ed as the o>nership or control of resources The position against >hich they argue is familiar from the >orAs of 9eacocA D*$%&; *$&*; *$&)E and SacAs D*$%(; *$%$E ;oth ha"e addressed the character of se.ually egalitarian systems 4n their "ie>, control Din terms of o>nershipE o"er resources is crucial; the test of an egalitarian system rests in >hether or not property discriminates bet>een persons 9eacocA is especially interested in the structure of decision,maAing, and the relationship bet>een production and consumption and the dispersal of authority #onsensus, she argues, is fundamental to the organi6ation of e"eryday life in egalitarian band society She >rites D*$&*:*0$E: food and other necessities >ere procured or manufactured by all able,bodied adults, and >ere directly distributed by their producers there >as no differential access to resources through pri"ate land o>nership and no speciali6ation of labor beyond that by se., hence no marAet system to inter"ene in the direct relationship bet>een production and distribution She adds emphatically, !nless some form of control o"er resources enables persons >ith authority to >ithhold them from others, authority is not authority as >e Ano> it SacAs D*$%$:**0E argues a case for >hat she calls a communal mode of production in such societies: All people ha"e the same relationship to the means of production, and hence they stand to each other as eGual members of a community of Fo>nersF page3*0$ Page *1' Thus they are all in a sense o>ners: they share eGual control That the se.es may Lact on different aspects of natureL D*$%$:**0E is a matter of occupation not of the critical relation to the means of production 7ence there may be differences in terms of occupation at the le"el of producti"e forces, SacAs puts it, but not at the le"el of relations to producti"e means -or both authors, FeGualityF is present >here persons as agents share decisions or utili6e common resources because o>nership does not discriminate bet>een them Men and >omen are found to be eGual on this score #ontrol o"er resources is thus the significant feature by >hich >e Ano> such societies to be egalitarian The self,e"ident nature of this position is apparent in 8ogersFs D*$%&:*((E general statement that LNpOo>er may be measured in terms of control o"er significant resources L The Gualification that resources need not only be FeconomicF Dthey may include ritual Ano>ledge and informationE does not affect the model of control SacAs maAes careful historical distinctions >ith respect to the emergence of pri"ate property in class society and the definiti"e character of systems that are not characteri6ed by pri"ate property :et she perpetuates a certain type of property thinAing in her "ery emphasis on the significance of co,o>nership Dthough Gualifying the term Fo>nerF, see SacAs *$%$:*)0 no )E 4n her Fcommunal mode of productionF, e"eryone

enJoys eGual claims on producti"e resources The se.es may do things differently, but they stand in the same relationship to the bandFs means of production: each se. o>ns and disposes of the fruits of its labor DSacAs *$%$:*00E F+galitarianismF thus rests on e"eryone o#ning their o#n la)or She refers to the band members as o>ner,producers; one could also say that she maAes them into a band of proprietors -or the concept that persons o>n and dispose of the fruits of their labor renders them indi"idual proprietors of it @thers cannot interfere in the e.ercise of this o>nership The indi"idualFs relationship to his or her labor is not imagined as that of pri"ate property, since the argument is that labor is not alienable and cannot circulate in commodity form The proprietorial assumption to >hich 4 ne"ertheless dra> attention is the unitary identification bet>een persons Das subJectsE and the products of their acti"ity D>orAE This is a general postulate in Western assessments about >hether or not menFs and >omenFs >orth is culturally recogni6ed 4t in"ol"es an ethical definition of the person as an agent responsible for his2her actions So says 9eacocA: LNTOhe basic principle of egalitarian band society page3*1' Page *1* >as that people made decisions about the acti"ities for >hich they >ere responsibleL D*$&*:*1'E; others did not taAe that FrightF a>ay from them 4 suspect that this position includes the idea that the author of an act should also be the one to e.ecute it and accountably so +ndicott D*$&*:*E is e.plicit: she defines eGuality and egalitarianism in hunter,gatherer economies as the Lindi"idual control of oneFs o>n labour, decision, maAing, course of action, social contacts and se.uality L :et the Western notion that people o>n >hat they do to the e.clusion of others seems hardly borne out by the e"idence on ho> claims and ceremonial duties in such non,Western societies are often structured 4ndeed, she refers to the cooperati"e nature of familial relations To assume that one can taAe as an analytical base a condition in >hich people control themsel"es and their labor, >ithout reference to social others, is to introduce a neoclassical economism >hen one least e.pects it 4 ha"e touched on arguments about egalitarianism in hunter,gatherer economies partly because of feminist interest in the e.tent to >hich such systems are also se.ually egalitarian and partly to demonstrate a particularly interesting property assumption in the accompanying adJudications The reader might be reminded of the pre"alence of FcontrolF in the reasons 7ighlands ethnographers adduced for the cults and ritual presented in the pre"ious chapter This notion of control implies something liAe an e.ercise of proprietorship, either o"er attributes FbelongingF to oneself or else o"er attributes FbelongingF to others and yielded by them The concept already preJudges the manner in >hich persons impinge upon one another 4n the same >ay, the concept of indi"idual o>nership of the self, >hich these >riters on hunter,gatherer systems un>ittingly use, implies an e.clusion of other parties; it thus preJudges the analysis of ho> claims are established on persons and e.ercised by social others SacAs e.tends her argument to >hat she calls the Ain corporate mode of production as one might find, she says, among clan,based Papua /e> Guinea 7ighlands horticulturalists, though her detailed e.amples are dra>n from Africa 7ere she e.plores the crucial contradiction bet>een men and >omen >ho as siblings share the same relations to the means of production Dcorporate Ain resourcesE but >ho as spouses stand in different relations She notes the appropriation by husbands of >hat the >ife produces, so that by contrast >ith their relations >ith sisters, men control their >i"esF labor or the laborFs products Writing specifically of the 5una Dto the >est of Paiela but belonging page3*1* Page *1) to a different language family in the 7ighlands of Papua /e> GuineaE, ModJesAa raises the Guestion of ho> the discrete o>nership of particular products, such as the husbandFs claim to pigs, can be conceptuali6ed in a situation in >hich the different labors of husbands and >i"es are combined in Guality and Guantity 7e obser"es D*$&):%'E that it is Lin the mo"ement from the organi6ation of production to the allocation of rights that the primary moment of false appropriationL must lie 7e d>ells particularly on the appropriation of >i"esF labor in pig production: Lthe interacti"e and social character of domestic production is not matched by e4ual rights in determining the allocation of pigs Nmy emphasisO L 7e continues: LWomen are granted eGual rights in consumption, but their rights in determining circulation are flatly denied This denial is mediated by ideological JustificationsFF D*$&):&)E 4n fact, most interestingly he proceeds to offer an obser"ation that compromises too close a parallel bet>een the political economy of the 5una and the corporate Ain mode systems described by SacAs; 5una Ainship corporations are structures made and perpetuated by the circulation of pigs under male control The modalities, as he puts it, of e.change, >hich include bride>ealth

and compensation payments definiti"e of group action, are effected through the circulation of pigs in their appropriated form % +"en as siblings, relations bet>een men and >omen are not eGual ;ut that is not >hy his argument is introduced here 8ather, it is to dra> attention to the assumption that there can be some independent determination of >hat a personFs FrightsF should be A "ocabulary >hich turns on the depri"ation of FrightsF must entail premises about a specific form of property & To assert rights against others implies a type of legal o>nership 5oes the right to determine the "alue of oneFs product belong naturally to the producerM The postulate that eGuality e.ists >here agents e.ercise control o"er their acti"ities, based on the assumption that >hat they do belongs to them in person, is itself part of an ancient +uropean critiGue of property and ineGuality WorA is regarded as Just such an acti"ity The internal critiGue of Western capitalism that dra>s attention to alienationto the separation of a person from his2her >orArests ultimately on the notion that persons someho> ha"e a natural right to the products of their o>n >orA, since they are the authors of their acts $ Such intrinsic possession of oneFs o>n acti"ity D>orAE means it has a "alue in the first instance for the self Dand thus may >e also speaA of it as laborE 4t is the personFs o#n appropriation of his or her acti"ity that gi"es it "alue, in so far as the person is a microcosm of the FsocialF process by >hich page3*1) Page *10 e.ogenous appropriation by others, by Fthe systemF, also gi"es it "alue /ot only is internal proprietorship assumed D;arnett and Sil"erman *$%$E, *' but a one,to,one relationship is imagined to e.ist bet>een a producer and >hat he or she produces @>nership of >hat a person does properly rests, it >ould appear, in that person as a singular indi"idual This notion, already mentioned in chapter (, is one to >hich 4 shall return #omparati"e analysis does not in the end turn on the applicability of single concepts but on the comparison of >hole systems To isolate the idea of FeGualityF is a case in point /o one >ould suggest that in Melanesia relations bet>een men and >omen are egalitarian either in fact or ideology 4ndeed, =osephides D*$&)E points to the significance of an o"ert ideology of ineGuality bet>een the se.es as concealing the combination of their labors ;ut, follo>ing Godelier D*$%6E, this obser"ation can also be re"ersed 4t is through gender imagery that concepts of eGuality and symmetry or ineGuality and asymmetry are fashioned The connection bet>een this imagery and relations bet>een men and >omen as such cannot be assessed >ithout some grasp of the o"erall system >ithin >hich eGualities and ineGualities are generated @n this point, all those >riters >hose >orA has been mentioned agree 4t is necessary to specify the nature of the political economy that produces these formulations of gender This tasA reGuires an e"aluati"e decision on the obser"erFs part about >hat Aind of system it indeed is A #ritiGue @f The Gift Adopting the concept of gift economy to apprehend the political,economic form of Melanesian societies a"oids certain preJudgments Specifying the products of economic arrangements as FcommoditiesF and FgiftsF, rather than referring to different >ays of producing and circulating FgoodsF, a"oids assumptions about "alues -or instance, Gregory D*$&)E argues, the category goods implies a subJecti"e relation bet>een an indi"idual and an obJect of desiregoods are pre,defined as things that people >ant #ategories such as commodity and gift refer instead to the organi6ation of relations #ommodity e.change, as he D*$&):1*E puts it, establishes a relationship bet>een the obJects e.changed, >hereas gift e.change establishes a relation bet>een the e.changing subJects 4n a commodity oriented economy, people thus e.perience their interest in commodities as a desire to appropriate goods; in a gift oriented economy, the desire is to e.pand social relations -or in a clan page3*10 Page *11 Drather than class,E based society, production and consumption are related in such a >ay that consumpti"e production, the consumption of things for the production of persons, predominates ** This is close to ModJesAaFs formulation that 5una social practices concerning pigs as obJects >ith a mediating potential DFgiftsFE confront one Lnot >ith a system of commodity production but rather >ith a system for the FproductionF Dor social reproductionE of persons as lineage and family membersL D*$&):(*E The self,replacement of clans, in GregoryFs scheme, in"ol"es turning things into persons, a process of personification that is predominant o"er >hat he calls obJectification, personsF production of things ;y

predominant, he means that this process determines the social form of things and persons FGift economyF, then, is a shorthand for describing a relationship bet>een production and consumption in >hich consumpti"e production shapes peopleFs moti"ations and the form in >hich they recogni6e producti"e acti"ities To so refer to Melanesian economies entails as much a cultural as a social categori6ation ;ut such a decision is bound to entail preJudgments of its o>n The Guestions posed about the ideological states of FpropertyF and Fo>nershipF as Western cultural idioms raise counterGuestions: perhaps terms such as FgiftF and Fe.changeF ha"e a similar cultural status #hapter 1, for instance, a.iomatically adopted the concept of reciprocity in defining the domestic production of persons in 7agen The e.egesis of the last chapter depended upon an interpreti"e resonance >ith Melanesian ideas about the interchange of se.ual attributes bet>een the se.es, thus adopting a model of e.change to describe the >ay relations are set up bet>een persons ;ut >hat is the status of these Melanesian ideasM 4f the idea of property as a thing conceals social relations in a commodity system, then >hat is e.change concealing in gift systems of the Melanesian AindM We reGuire in turn a critiGue of the ideology of e.change rather than adopting it une.amined into analysis *) The concept of FreciprocityF in particular has dra>n recent anthropological fire Among many commentators, from among and beyond Melanesianists, A Weiner has supplanted interpretations that rest on notions of reciprocity deri"ed from &he Gift DMauss *$(1E >ith a modelling of Massim e.change as a species of reproduction +.change, she argues, feeds the >ay in >hich Ltransactions allo> for the build,up and the embeddedness of >ealth and "alue in othersL D*$&':%0; see also *$%&; *$%$; *$&)E 8eciprocity in e.change cannot be taAen as an independent social form *0 As >ill become apparent, my later arguments page3*11 Page *1( do"etail >ith hers in so far as 4 attempt to elucidate different types of producti"ity 7o>e"er, the impetus for the present chapter comes from =osephides D*$&); see also *$&0; *$&(aE, a 7ighlands commentator >ho tacAles reciprocity in terms of its ideological dimension Although to some e.tent independently concei"ed, =osephidesFs argument can be related to those offered by feminist anthropologists addressing the issue of se.ual ineGuality in terms of class relations and e.ploitation and the comparison of political economy types As >e ha"e seen, there are ad"antages to such a position: namely, it distances itself from cultural categories 4n con"entional accounts of gift e.change indigenous formulations are captured for analytical purposes; it is not necessarily the case that the theoretical frame is deri"ed from them, but the Ainds of data fed into it are ActorsF concepts about transactions or indebtedness in gift relations are selected as the essential data 4n the Melanesian systems, these also in"ol"e assumptions about reciprocity and eGuality =osephides Gueries the ease >ith >hich they ha"e been taAen on board @n the one hand, her critiGue of gift ideology deri"es its force from considering gift e.change as constituting relations of production; on the other, she discusses the >ay in >hich the FeGualityF and FreciprocityF, on >hich the e.changes appear to rest, disguise the nature of these relations -or my part, 4 regard the argument about eGuality as something of a detour: the crucial obser"ation to >hich her thesis leads is that gift e.change conceals the con"entions of reification All the same, the detour is >orth maAing briefly, if only to dispose of a number of Guestions that lurA by the >ay FGift economyF, as a shorthand reference to systems of production and consumption >here consumpti"e production predominates, implies, in GregoryFs terminology, that things and people assume the social form of persons They thus circulate as gifts, for the circulation creates relationships of a specific type, namely a Gualitati"e relationship bet>een the parties to the e.change This maAes them reciprocally dependent upon one another Some dependencies are concei"ed of as prior to transactions, >hile others are constructed during the course of the transaction itself 4n the latter case, parties may come to the transaction as independent social entities, a condition for the Aind of reciprocity that ceremonial e.change partners in 7agen, for instance, sustain bet>een themsel"es The outsider may establish these points through the e.amination of social arrangements Dpolitical and AinshipE contingent on the circulation of persons and things; but it is the actors, of course, page3*1( Page *16 >ho construe the Gualitati"e nature of the relationships in terms of an Fe.changeF or as a matter of parties to the e.change being in a state of FreciprocityF As Sahlins D*$%):*01E >arned, Le"ery>here in the >orld the indigenous category for e.ploitation is FreciprocityF L

=osephidesFs critiGue of the gift is directed specifically to the manner in >hich the sphere of ceremonial e.change has been thus described for 7agen She >rites: the ideology of reciprocity, and especially in the form of ceremonial e.change in traditional Papua /e> Guinea societies liAe the Melpa of Mount 7agen, Western 7ighlands, ser"es to disguise actual ineGualities in the distribution of social, political and economic po>er D*$&):*E 4n other >ords, ceremonial e.change and its attendant norms of reciprocity are presented in a form that mystifies po>er relations She argues that they both hide ineGualities bet>een men and co"er up the producti"e base on >hich menFs prestige,gaining acti"ities rest They thereby facilitate menFs e.ploitation of >omenFs labor 7er "ie> of the systemic DFideologicalFE nature of this facilitation is a subtle one 5isguise is at issue in so far as these ideas present a "ersion of the relationships in Guestion >hich promotes the interests of some of the actors at the e.pense of others; thus she raises the Guestion of di"isi"e interests ;ut she does not imagine that they belong to another order of reality 4t can be argued that relations based on Fgift e.changeF Guite as much as those based on FAinshipF function )oth as relations of production and as ideologies, in -riedmanFs phrase D*$%1:11(E, upon >hich mythologies are built These relations disguise features of themsel"es *1 =osephides argues that LWhat is concealed in these NceremonialO e.changes is the relationship bet>een the prestige gained there and producti"e labour; in other >ords the role of mo.a as the mode of appropriation, and, in a >ider sense, as relations of productionL D*$&):0)E #onseGuently, to say that at the core of mo.a N7agen ceremonial e.changeO transactions is e.ploitation and domination, and all the rest is mere >aste of social energy in con"erting and recon"erting economic capital, is not to present a true picture of the economy; rather, as ;ourdieu >arns, it is to strip it to its final, material effects; in fact to impo"erish and caricature it %or #ithin a definition of economic activity is included also the activity that conceals its functionthe relation of FmisrecognitionF We ha"e to penetrate to the Fdeeper logicF to understand the economy; but at the same time >e must realise that this Fdeeper logicF >ould not be "isible if it had no o"ert structures to support it Nmy emphasisO D*$&):0)E page3*16 Page *1% The crucial domination, she argues, is of big men o"er little as >ell as men o"er >omen 7er analysis suggests that it is big menFs ine"itable interests in prestige and group aggrandi6ement and its con"erse that no strong group could e.ist >ithout a strong indi"idual, >hich are the source of the misrecognition 7er insights rest in turn on a fundamental premise about the nature of social life: 4 arri"e at an irreducible socio,economic acti"ity >hich 4 see not as culturally relati"e, but as being present in all societies and ordering po>er differentials This is uneGual access to the pool of human labour in a community >hich enables some people to control the labour po>er of others Whether the control is direct or indirect, o"er or co"ert, enshrined in institutions or practised surreptitiously, it establishes and reproduces relations in >hich some social actors may e.ercise political dominance o"er the community D*$&(b:*&E Most >idely concei"ed, =osephidesFs argument is that to concentrate on gift e.change is to o"erlooA the "ital sphere of production, a procedure that participates in indigenous e"aluations: While the e.change sphere is said to be egalitarian, the producti"e domestic sphere is one of interdependence :et the egalitarianism of e.change is false, precisely because of its unacAno>ledged relationship to production; and the interdependence in production really supports hierarchical domestic relations D*$&(a:*E ;ut in saying that 4 regard the issue of eGuality as a detour, 4 >ould comment that it is >ith respect to adJudications o"er eGuality and ineGuality in the course of e.amining this FegalitarianismF that she implements the same Ainds of property assumptions encountered in the discussions about hunter,gatherer economies Since =osephides addresses herself to 7agen, her comments ha"e a special interest for me and 4 first re,present some of the 7agen material to suggest ho> her "ery pertinent criticism of gift ideology incorporates certain property ideas 4t is this aspect of the root metaphor that importantly establishes the e.ogenous "ie>point from >hich the criticism is made ;ut at the same time, it limits the criticism to its o>n premises, "i6 , producti"e >orA and the disposal of its products 9et me repeat that the problem here is not

the bias of the criticism Dthe criticism is properly concei"ed of as dra>ing on a different frame of reference from indigenous formulationsE The problem is rather the form the bias taAesthat it entails specific assumptions about proprietorship that interfere >ith our understanding the indigenous premises of Melanesian social action page3*1% Page *1& The +.ploitation @f -emale 9abor Aspects of 7agen domestic organi6ation >ere introduced in chapter 1 The di"ision of labor in subsistence horticulture in"ol"es men clearing and fencing the land >hich >omen plant and har"est; pigs are raised, tended and fed by >omen, to be used as >ealth items in e.change transactions These include bride>ealth, funeral and compensation payments, and also that class of gift gi"ing, ceremonial e.change Dmo.aE, that promotes menFs prestige and political interests <in,based e.changes tend to be completed fairly GuicAly, and any enduring transactions based on them de"elop a mo.a format Shells, and no>adays money, circulate alongside the pigs Public ceremony is in the hands of men, and 4 coined the epithets FproducerF and FtransactorF to distinguish >omenFs and menFs places >ith respect to these acti"ities DM Strathern *$%)E Whereas men are both producers and transactors, >omen are by and large only producers As one polygynist declared: LWomen are on our hands; they are not strong enough to do things themsel"es and >e men looA after them We men >orA >ith our hands, and >omen are on our hands and eat the food that comes up L F9ooAing afterF typifies relations bet>een political allies and help gi"en bet>een clansmen as >ell as bet>een parents and children 4t also typifies relations bet>een husband and >ife in so far as they contribute to one anotherFs enterprises Thus, >omen are said to looA after their husbands and sons ;oth spouses may plant their o>n patches of the cash crop coffee and may declare that each har"ests the trees they ha"e planted and Aeeps the proceeds >ithout regard to the other 7ere a unitary relationship is conceptuali6ed bet>een the planter and the yield, >hich applies also to the planting of foodstuffs Such claims are e.ercised especially by >omen, >ho Jealously guard their crops against all comers Dincluding husbands and childrenE And then, in the same breath, they >ill also say that the husband FlooAed afterF his >ife and ga"e her some of the trees he had planted, or the >ife FlooAed afterF him and picAed coffee for him MenFs and >omenFs labor is not contrasted here; >hat is contrasted are the ends to >hich the labor is put Whereas husband and >ife both looA after each other, the husband is also in a position to acGuire a name, that is, public prestige The help his >ife gi"es him assists him in this, and in turn she may thereby participate in his prestige So, for instance, in the name of his potential prestige, a man may asA for monetary help from his >ife to buy a "ehicle that >ill bear his and not her name ;ut the re"erse transaction page3*1& Page *1$ is traditionally inconcei"able The same holds for the disposal of pigs 7usband and >ife together rear themthe pigs are tended daily by the >ife, fed her food from land belonging to the husbandFs clanbut only the husband can transform the pigs into gifts and dispatch them in ceremonial e.change 7e maAes a name for himself; later he returns stocA to his >ifeFs care or allocates her porA; she gets more pigs, and2or porA but not a name A small illustration may maAe the point, in relation to preparations a young man and his father >ere maAing for ceremonial e.change Dmo.aE in *$&* They had collected together cash sums from "arious female relati"es The youth commented that the >omen >ere Just helping them both, and it >ould be their o>n t>o Dthe menFsE names >hich >ould Lgo inside the ceremonial e.change L Pigs >ere also in"ol"ed There >ere "arious pigs of the house >hich his mother and father >ould put in the mo.a ;oth parents had looAed after the pigs together, but the father >ould, of course, transact >ith them There >ould also be pigs gained from his e.changes >ith other men *( 7o>e"er, in talAing to me later, the mother herself used the unit model that suggests an e.clusi"e relationship bet>een a planter and >hat she plants She said that she >as going to contribute to the e.change apart from her husband, in the name of one of her immature sons They >ere her o>n pigs, she had tended them, and they >ould go in separately from others that the husband had acGuired from else>here These are not to be understood as conflicting property claims but rather as glosses put on differentiated sources of production Pigs may be seen as cared for by the >ife, as the product of the spousesF Joint labor, or as ultimately deri"ed from earlier transactions of the husbandFs :et the situation seems ripe for an

analysis of e.ploitation 4ndeed, it is reminiscent of the ;arotse case from central Africa scrutini6ed by -ranAenberg D*$%&E The notion of reciprocity in the di"ision of labor bet>een ;arotse husband and >ife, and the legal fact that they ha"e eGual rights in the crops she has >orAed, ser"es to hide ineGualities in their access to producti"e resources -ranAenberg refers dryly to the >ifeFs labor as rent for the land she >orAs A >ifeFs control o"er the fruits of her labor is restricted by her obligation to feed her family, and her claims to land depend on her marriage to her husband 7er labor does not establish any independent entitlement These obser"ations parallel =osephidesFs =osephides >orAed among the <e>a, to the south of 7agen She describes <e>a ceremonial e.change in >hich men distinguish, as 7a, page3*1$ Page *(' geners do, Fhouse pigsF that the >ife has reared from pigs obtained by the husbandFs transactions and o"er >hich the >ife has diminished control ;ecause of all the coming and going of animals, in fact at any one time most pigs can be sho>n to be the result of the husbandFs transactions, and are claimed by him as FhisF Thus =osephides argues, transactions mystify >omenFs continuous input of labor A >ife must feed all the pigs to >hich a husband lays claim, >here"er they ha"e come from, yet her labor does not necessarily establish any entitlement to them *6 8ather transaction upon transaction creates a smoAescreen in >hich a >omanFs labour in the acGuisition of e.change pigs is irretrie"ably lost WomenFs labor recei"es official recognition at the pig feast, but this is e.actly >here the products of that labour are appropriated The husband distributes porA, creating debts in his name The >ife may still enJoy the fruits of the returns if she remains >ith her husband, but if she separates and remarries she forfeits her in"estment D*$&0:0'6E Although =osephides points out that <e>a ha"e no elaborate e.change cycles >ith a momentum of their o>n, it is from a similar "antage point that she mounts her critiGue of the 7agen data She argues that the ethnographers had o"erlooAed the ideological force of 7agenersF rhetoric of reciprocity, >hich perpetrates the myth that gifts create gifts To regard items used in transactions as coming from transactions >ith others obscures t>o things 4t obscures ineGualities in menFs access to producti"e resources among themsel"es, since the ability to obtain gifts is seen not as a matter of number of >i"es or si6e of gardens but of sAill in transactions And in the case of pigs it obscures the considerable female labor that goes into their maintenance Since only men gain a name, they con"ert material into symbolic capital >hile e.cluding >omen in the process 8elations bet>een husband and >ife might be represented as reciprocal D>hen they speaA of FlooAing afterF one anotherE but, she argues, it is the relationship )et#een #or. and its product Nmy emphasisO that the system disguises -ormal reciprocity espouses a strict di"ision of labour >hich is intrinsically uneGual The e.change is fetishised as creating >ealth, >hereas in reality >ealth is merely appropriated NauthorFs emphasisO there Nin e.changeO by being transformed into NmenFsO prestige D*$&):0)E +.change, and not the labor that creates the product in the first place, is presented as creating >ealth This sets the conditions for >hat she calls Frelations of e.ploitationF Production is appropriated in the interests of men 4n raising pigs, >omen produce a manFs most strategic page3*(' Page *(* resource -or this reason, 7agen Lmen cannot allo> their >omen rights of disposal o"er their productsL D*$&):0'E Appropriation is understood as inhering in the con"ersion of the products of >orA into material capital D>ealthE that can be con"erted into symbolic capital DprestigeE, e.cluding the producers as producers #eremonial e.change, >ith its myth that gifts create gifts, thus hides the underlying fact that such e.change is the means through >hich >ealth is appropriated The dogma of FreciprocityF pretends that men come as FeGualsF to their e.change partnerships; L>hat is suppressed is ineGuality of access to resourcesL D*$&):0E The domination of some men Dthose >ith the most producti"e resourcesE o"er others is co"ert 5omination of >omen by men, ho>e"er, is o"ert Men and >omen must be conceptuali6ed as different for the se.ual di"ision of labor to operate, and as uneGual since the >orA of one se. is accorded more social "alue than the >orA of the other The "alue is itself constructed through the disguise of economic capital by symbolic capital, by the dogma that it is not the products of labor that are put into circulation but the result of transactions, "i6 , gifts 8eciprocity bet>een spouses glosses o"er the ineGualities intrinsic to this di"ision of

labor +"ery transaction must be euphemi6ed as a gift, because >hat is formally stressed is al>ays the relationship bet>een people transacting, rather than the acGuisition of goods This cultural emphasis co"ers up the uneGual e.changes >hich taAe place bet>een husband and >ife, married man and bachelor, big man and his agnates Gift economy, then, disguises uneGual e.change and mystifies transactions as free gifts, yet at the same time presents them as >ealth creators D*$&(a:)*&, ))'E 4neGualities are created, =osephides argues, in the relationship bet>een production and e.change The ideological separation of production from transaction renders the producerFs position inherently e.ploitable 4t may be a gentle rather than "iolent e.ploitation, the big man hiding behind Ainship ideologies in order to reproduce the relations of domination, *% but >e must recogni6e it as such 7o>e"er, 4 build on =osephidesFs insights through a gentle deconstruction T>o things interest me: first, the assumption that it is >orA >hich is the subJect of "alue con"ersion, so that one can speaA of the appropriation of labor; and second, that persons ought to o>n and retain control o"er >hat they do (omestic la)or and the 4uestion of alienation1 There is certainly a Western sense in >hich all "alue, con"ersions are regarded as e.ploit, page3*(* Page *() ati"e, that is, the "alue that people acGuire for themsel"es is seen to be at the e.pense of others With respect to >age,labor, e.traction is en"isaged in the form of alienation, because it is supposed that >hat lies at the basis of "alue,con"ersion is something being done by other agents to the >orA people do or to the products that embody their >orA The >orAer does not determine their "alue 4n effect, he2she has gi"en up control o"er the use of his2her labor When 7agen men maAe gifts out of pigs, they do indeed transform "alue: the animals ha"e been reclassified ;y turning pigs as food to be eaten into gifts to be e.changed, the husband relocates their social origin: the pigs are no> seen to be the result of other pre"ious gift,transactions by >hich they entered his household As gifts, they circulate only to enhance menFs names Any credit that comes to the >ife is secondary The case >ould seem to present e"idence indeed for labor alienation in a noncapitalist conte.t through FFthe concealment of the economic in a non,economic formL D;onte *$&*:0$E 7o>e"er, >e cannot dismiss the fact that the concept of alienation is in the first place connected to particular critiGues of Western capitalism and class relations, as noted at the beginning of the chapter 4n the long term, this connection >ill pro"e rele"ant to the manner in >hich >e apprehend modes of symboli6ation and, in the immediate term, to the Ainds of Guestions >e asA about labor 4t is a.iomatic to this critiGue that interests are ad"anced through the mystification of social relations Par e.cellence, the representation of commodities as FgoodsF promotes them as obJects >ith self,contained "alue, capable of being o>ned and circulated as property, >ithout reference to the social sources of production Goods are created >ith particular personsF concrete labors, but that labor is embodied in them as abstract labor, so that their origin in the >orA of particular laborers is rendered irrele"ant They can thus be appropriated as the ne> o>nerFs FpropertyF, attached to the o>ner by "irtue of the o>nerFs o>n actions: o>nership implies control o"er the alienability of things This is possible in so far as labor and2or its products may itself be construed as alienable property and put under the control of another 7ere >e ha"e a description, then, of the internal rationality of relations of production and of its constituent ideology by >hich the separation of >orAer and product is taAen for granted 7o>e"er, another dimension tends to taAe center stage in both feminist and anthropological arguments that dra> on such critiGues, and that is the substanti"e Guestion of control o"er domestic labor page3*() Page *(0 @ne issue facing the analysis of noncapitalist systems is that typically labor is not made abstractit remains concretethat is, it remains indicati"e of its social origins and cannot be measured or Guantified by criteria common to all labor The proposition applies, for instance, to the production of Ano>ledge on Malo; Ano>ledge there has "alue because of its reference to specific persons and thus specific social sources 4t also applies to basic subsistence acti"ities 4f a di"ision of labor bet>een the se.es defines their relationship, then the labor has no abstract "alue outside it Dif a >ifeFs Job as a >ife is doing I for her husband, she cannot sell doing I to someone elseE 4ndeed, in subsistence technologies of the Melanesian Aind, the status of domestic labor becomes rele"ant to the characteri6ation of the >hole economy

As it >as debated in the *$%'s and early *$&'s, the issue of domestic labor turns on the e.tent to >hich, in a capitalist economy, domestic relations lie outside capitalist institutions or contribute to them 4t also turns on >hether the "ery notion of concrete labor in the domestic conte.tthe >ay in >hich members of a household are locAed into rendering ser"ices to one anotheris not itself a mystification The Guestion is the nature of the >orA being done 4t has no FsocialF "alue, not because the sources in particular persons are not acAno>ledged but because it remains pri"ate labor /ot abstractable in terms of an a"erage Guantity, it has no currency and thus no "isibility outside the domestic sphere *& There is an interesting eGui"ocation here: the Mar.ist,deri"ed epithet FsocialF refers to an abstract "alue De g , the socially necessary labor time inherent in the commodityE, the anthropological epithet to particular, nonGuantifiable relations of all Ainds Thus 7arris and :oung D*$&*E, agreeing that >here production is not for commodity e.change labor >ill not be abstracted but allocated by social criteria, add that the circulation of goods and people must form part of the account of social reproduction as a >hole This nonetheless prompts one, as =osephides >as prompted, to asA the same Guestion about concrete labor in noncapitalist systems: >hat interests are ser"ed in the >ay the mobili6ation of labor is embedded in structures of Ainship or politicsM 4f one relocates the Guestion of production as the production of social relations through circulation Dof items, food, >omen, children, and menE, by >hat mystifications do people represent these structuresM #an one regard gift e.change as analogous to e.change Di e , FdistributionFE in a commodity system that separates such e.change from production and consumption as part of its o>n self,descriptionM 4f the social circulation of products page3*(0 Page *(1 is conseGuently regarded as distinct from production, concei"ed as a self,contained process, the separation is an ideological one in capitalist representations, concealing the process of alienation :et can >e concomitantly e.tend the argument that the gift, an appropriation of items produced by domestic labor, also conceals the nature of these producti"e relationsM The argument has been e.tended in negati"e form: >ere such concealment not to taAe place, and the producti"e base of e.change acti"ity to be openly recogni6ed, then e.ploitation based on alienation >ould not occur -eil D*$&1E taAes this "ie> in his study of Tombema +nga *$ 8elations of e.change, he says, are eGually relations of production, and since production and e.change are linAed together, then menFs and >omenFs complementary efforts are recogni6ed D*$&1b:%$&', )0)E WomenFs labor is not alienated from them, because the labor is ne"er e.tracted: it remains embedded in the pigs that circulate as FproducedF items Thus although -eil D*$&1b:&'E says that Lonly by e.changing them, by gi"ing them a>ay, does Fsocial "alueF accrue to the producer of the pigs,L he also regards e.change and production as a continuous process, so that production is not thereby de"alued 4n other >ords, he denies that there is any con"ersion of "alue, or, if there is, that at the point at >hich social "alue is created, it continues to bear reference to the Joint acti"ities of both se.es Significantly, >omen are seen as central to the "ery constitution of the e.change partnerships Dcreated through affinal and matrilineal linAsE WomenFs essential role in the formation of e.change partnerships means that Lrelations of e.change are eGually inalienable from them, for men cannot form partnerships >ithout >omenL D*$&1b:)0)E )' -eil adduces historical reasons for the rather different de"elopments in 7agen society Dsee *$&)aE, >hich he sees as leading there to >omen losing Ltheir crucial role in and partial control of the e.change systemL because LNtOhey no longer helped produce the items of highest e.change "alue, pigsL D*$&1b:$&E, since shells had become the most esteemed item 4n Tombema, >omenFs crucial role remained intact, and he refers to husbands and >i"es as partners in ceremonial e.change Prestige is to be gained for both @ne basis for this, he argues, is that LNpOigs are the inalienable property of the >oman >hose labour produced them Nmy emphasisOL D*$&1b:**&E A >oman thus has rights of disposal o"er Fhouse pigsF, that is, those produced >ithin her o>n household as opposed to those that come along the e.change FroadF A property relation constitutes rather peculiar grounds for arguing that >omenFs labor is page3*(1 Page *(( not alienatedS @ne may also note the asymmetry in his argument, that such pigs of the house are not also classified as menFs FpropertyF, in spite of the complementary effort that >ent into their production )* /e"ertheless, -eilFs general point is that labor is not misrecogni6ed; it does not undergo a "alue con"ersion that renders it as something else, as =osephides suggested is the case in the 7agen con"ersion of the products of labor into >ealth and gifts

The historical argument is to some e.tent a red herring 4n a conte.t >here, as -eil correctly notes for 7agen, production as a category of acti"ity is de"alued in certain situations, 4 >ant to argue )oth that labor is not alienated and that there is nonetheless a radical "alue transformation that sustains the distinction bet>een production and transaction There is a concealment, but it is not best grasped as the concealment of the economic in a noneconomic form There is domination but not domination through the e.ploitation of labor The 7agen ethnography De g , M Strathern *$%)E apparently gi"es the unfortunate impression that domestic labor is >omenFs labor 4t >as ne"er the case, of course, that domestic production in 7agen >as described as engaging female labor alone Men and >omen are both producers;)) it is in the rhetorical conte.t of e"aluating transactions that men distinguish FmaleF transaction from FfemaleF production, thereby femini6ing their o>n producti"e efforts They eclipse their o#n producti"e acti"ities as >ell as >omenFs )0 4 use the metaphor FeclipseF to dra> attention to a special feature of this concealment 4t is not the case that transforming pigs into gifts re,FproducesF them, re,authors them in terms of production 4t is not their o>n DmaleE labor that is made the basis of their claims, as appears to be the case among the Sa,speaAers of ?anuatu Sa men claim certain products Las incarnations of themsel"es, of their labour, thus obscuring the interdependent nature of co,operation and the se.es in their production L =olly adds: Lalthough the ideology correctly represents products as congealed human labor Nit is not misrecogni6ed as propertyO, there is a partial misrepresentation in that particular products, namely yams and pigs, are seen pre,eminently as the creations of menL; this supports her analysis of relations here in"ol"ing Fpartial e.ploitationF D=olly *$&*:)&6)&%E ;y contrast, the e"aluation of 7agen pigs as male >ealth entails the apparently parado.ical corollary that female labor as such is not concealed The creati"e >orA of producing pigs is not denied; on the contrary, the >orA that >omen do in their gardens and in tending the herds is fully acAno>ledged page3*(( Page *(6 There is a pu66le here: 7agen >orA is not disguised as something else The "alue s>itch does not affect the products of >orA in the Sa sense, maAing out that the >orA belongs e.clusi"ely to one of a pair /or does it affect it in the manner in >hich in the production of goods >hich as commodities e"ery input of labor is made more useful by the addition of further laborat each stage of a manufacturing process, the prior stage is regarded as yielding a ra> product, in a relati"ely useless form, >hich the manufacturer of the moment turns into a more useful one 7agen gifts in no sense maAe useful obJects out of useless ones @n the contrary, that use remains embedded in the domestic cycle and in the pigsF e"entual consumption as food 4t is >hen they are consumed that the labor in producing them is recogni6ed The creation of a gift maAes a Guite different entity out of the animals 4ndeed, as gifts, there is an embargo on them being consumed The gifts create debts, and the debts sustain the circulation of pigs; they are re,transformed into use items only by the original person >ho put the gift into the system and >ho decides to Aill the pigs he gets bacA in return for his initial in"estments ;oth husband and >ife eat: no one else can taAe the spousesF Joint interest in the animal out of the system )1 Whate"er >orA >ent into the production of the pigs, others cannot appropriate it as >orA; they acGuire the gift as a debt to be repaid ModJesAa D*$&):&(&6E has a comment on this process Women find themsel"es labouring >ithin a structure of social relations created by a flo> of pigs in circulation, produced at least half by their o>n labour, and yet it is a >orld they ne"er made The surplus product can be returned completely to its producers >ithout altering the alienations of a social edifice constructed by male,dominated circulation That the demands put on >omen are a conseGuence of menFs operations should not be underemphasi6ed Gi"en the >ay >orA is oriented to social others, po>er lies in the effecti"e definition of the scope of relations that such >orA can create 4t is scope about >hich 7agen >omen complain: they too >ould liAe to be able to tra"el around all day "isiting others WorA as such is not being transformed 8ather it is a sphere of agency Men >ho, liAe >omen, are produced out of domestic households eclipse that social source in arrogating to themsel"es a domain of political action They do not encompass domestic relations, but they claim that their acti"ities are not determined solely by them -or instance, in the relationships created >ith e.change partners through page3*(6

Page *(% debts, it is dependency bet>een Ainsmen that is eclipsed 7agen practice tends to maAe matrilateral and affinal relations the basis for DfurtherE mo.a partnerships and to set to one side the essential asymmetry of such relations concei"ed in terms of domestic Ainship +lse>here in the 7ighlands, through an elaboration of Ain,based e.change, the >orA of nurture and procreation does indeed create unilateral debts 8eturn gifts acAno>ledge that >orA, although as >e shall see there is more than acAno>ledgment of >orA at issue; such e.changes also ha"e ends of their o>n #onsonant >ith the last fact, 7agen ceremonial e.change displays the e.ertion of male agency in creating a special set of effects ;ut, as in a lunar eclipse, for the effects to be registered, there can be only partial concealment and not obliteration 4t is in deliberate contradistinction to domestic sociality that political life is created 5efiniti"ely, political life does not re,FproduceF the interdependencies and asymmetries of Ainship This is the point at >hich to refer bacA to the supposition in the e.ploitation arguments that persons naturally o>n >hat they do, that is, they o>n their o>n capacity to labor Western proprietism inheres in the >ay relations bet>een persons and things are concei"ed through the metaphor of the commodity Persons are assumed to be the proprietors of their persons Dincluding their o>n >ill, their energies, and >orA in the general sense of directed acti"ityE 7ence commodity thinAing supplies t>o sets of formula "ariously present in the analyses considered here We might imagine them Dsee pp *01*06E as the roots and branches of one DWesternE system of thinAing The ideology and its critics occupy alternating positions @ne is the thesis of marAet e.change, >hich supposes that a product can be separated from the producer >ith no loss to the self Dit can be freely bought and soldE The antithesis is that e"ery such separation in fact alienates the producer from part of him or herself, namely his or her labor The second thesis concerns pri"ate property, namely that proprietorship instantiates an identity bet>een o>ner and thing o>ned, bet>een producer and product 4ts antithesis is that such a state is reali6ed FnaturallyF in the enJoyment of the use "alue of things but cannot be reali6ed under the conditions of labor alienation What brings these ideas together is their resting on a common DculturalE notion of a unitary self, the Lpossessi"e indi"idualL D4llich *$&):**E )( 4t >as noted earlier that this holism supposes an internal relation of a rather limited Aind +ither the unitary self is an autonomous agent >ith control o"er things e.ternal to him or her, but >hich, in his or her possession, is part of the personFs page3*(% Page *(& identity Dthesis one and t>oE, or else Dantithesis one and t>oE the person is indissolubly linAed to his or her o>n acti"ities in such a >ay that this unitary self is split apart >hen the products of acti"ities are appropriated by others /one of these Western propositions allo>s for the inter"ention of social others e.cept in the guise of a supplanted authorship or proprietorship As long as things are Fo>nedF or the Fuse "alueF of labor is enJoyed, the one,to,one relationship bet>een proprietor and product is assumed The "isibility of such a one,to,one relationship gi"es the personFs subJecti"e autonomy >ith respect to others its recogni6ed cultural form The common proprietorial metaphor of an identity bet>een the person as agent and the agentFs acts2products implies they are his or hers before they are appropriated by another Specifically, the identity is that bet>een an act or product and the source of the act or product in an agent -or the postulate that people o>n themsel"es is linAed to the notion that they are the authors of their o>n actions Authorship combines t>o elements in this constellation of ideasthe property,deri"ed conceptuali6ation of legitimate o>nership and the critiGue based on a metaphysical definition of the conscious indi"idual agent >ho is the singular source of his2her o>n acts Persons FareF >hat they Fha"eF or FdoF Any interference in the one,to,one relationship is regarded as the intrusion of an FotherF This other may supplant and in effect re,author acti"ity by being the source of a different "alue for it /o> this looAs, for a moment, rather close to >hat 7agen men are doing They claim singular responsibility of a Aind: as >ealth pigs are freshly conceptuali6ed as the results of menFs transactions, and thus their "alue in e.change is the "alue that men ha"e gi"en to them 4ndeed, menFs collecti"e identification >ith the e.changes they create does produce a Aind of unitary measure There is a one,to,one relationship bet>een a manFs performance in mo.a or public life in general and his name or prestige ;ut this identification is a specific creation of male political life 4n fact, men only achie"e this state through a set of systematic separations that render the sphere in >hich they claim prestige apart from domestic acti"ity, >here they are, Guite emphatically, not the singular proprietors of their o>n persons

4t is no surprise, then, that the parado.ically concei"ed contrast bet>een root metaphors should yield further parado. in turn 4n a gift economy of the 7agen type, men lay singular claim to a sphere of political acti"ities, creating as artificial a unity that in a commodity page3*(& Page *($ economy is supposed as a natural relation bet>een the indi"idual subJect and his or her acti"ities 4n"ersely, the commodity supposition that it is culture or society that plurali6es and di"ersifies the "alues of things runs counter to the supposition of the gift economy that persons are intrinsically plural and di"erse in origin and in their acts With this in mind, let us return to the issues of e.ploitation and alienation Transformations #eremonial e.change acti"ity of the 7agen Aind is set off from domesticity and from production and reproduction in household relations, as it is from the demands of personal Ain ties 4n this latter domain, >orA remains concrete, specifiable by its social source Moreo"er, since products are seen as constructed from multiple sources, sustained as multiple, the products themsel"es remain multiply authored Where >orA is combined Das in the reproduction of childrenE, one type of >orA cannot establish a claim o"er the product to the e.clusion of others What is true of children is also true of foodstuffs and pigs produced by the household 4ndeed, >hether >e are dealing >ith Ainship systems of the 7agen or Gimi type Dsee chap (E, such products replicate the discrete input of no one author: the child has neither the motherFs nor fatherFs social identity but combines them both in an entity that in this sense is uniGue 4t e.ists as a specific combination of other identities When >ealth circulates in this domain Dthrough bride>ealth and child payments, for instanceE, it >ill also carry a multiple identity 4n 7agen, it is emphatically the achie"ement of menFs ceremonial e.change system that they transform this into a singular identity for themsel"es: >ealth comes to stand for that part of themsel"es >hich is then construed as their >hole self, their prestige To emphasi6e the achie"ement of singular identity, 4 prefer to call this dynamic a transformation rather than a con"ersion, because ranA is not an issue )6 FSubsistence >ealthF and Fprestige >ealthF are not to be measured against one another The t>o domains do not simply comprise different spheres of e.change: the concept of >ealth is freshly constituted, and it is this symbolic constitution that 4 >ish to capture in the term FtransformationF #on"ersion may >ell typify the mutual translation of gifts into >ords or into blo>s, and "ice "ersa, all >ithin the domain of political action Transformation consists in a s>itch from one domain to another; it results in the "ery creation of >ealth items page3*($ Page *6' and their messages about the donorFs and recipientFs prestige There has been a dramatic alteration in the perception of the Joint products of domestic interdependence 4n other >ords, it >ould mislead to present the case as the supplanting of one proprietor by another, or as though the con"ersion from economic capital into symbolic capital substituted one relation of unitary identity for another The transformation in the 7agen case is the creation of a unitary identity Dfor menE out of a multiply constituted identity This being so, perhaps one should abandon the term labor altogether 4f >e follo> the distinction bet>een >orA Dpurposi"e acti"ity in the production process that creates use "alueE and labor D>hich is apprehended as ha"ing social "alueE as @llman D*$%6:$&E elucidates it in his discussion of +ngels and Mar.Fs terminology, one >ould ha"e to say that in the 7agen case FlaborF is not an instituted category )% That is, there is no obJectification of >orA apart from its performance 4t is social relations that are obJectified in pigs and gardens: >orA cannot be measured separately from relationships This is highly pertinent to the >ay in >hich the multiple identity of persons is e"inced in the sphere of domestic Ainship 4 taAe the 7agen di"ision of labor bet>een spouses as the principal relation out of >hich the "alues established in ceremonial e.change are constructed ;et>een husband and >ife, >e ha"e seen that the >orA each of them does demonstrates both moti"ation DFmindFE and intentionality as >ell as commitment to their relationship When people consider the >orA that >ent into producing pigs, neither the >omanFs nor the manFs >orA can encompass that of the other partner The pig is multiply produced, and 4 say multiply rather than dually in order to retain a reference to the open,ended transactions >ith DmultipleE Ain of all Ainds in >hich any particular set of transactions, including those bet>een spouses, is en"eloped As a

product of the relationship bet>een the conJugal partners, the pig is not reducible to the sole interest of either party /o> the >orA of feeding pigs is not part of them in the eyes of its recipient in mo.a: >hat is in his eyes are the animals he >ill e"entually match Dhis debtE The donor, on the other hand, cannot recall such >orA independently from his domestic relationships To thinA of the >orA embodied in the pig is to thinA of the "alue husband and >ife ha"e for each other A man taAes a fattened animal as a sign of his >ifeFs care Dit is >hen he does not that conflict arisesE #on"ersely, the >ife is not an o>ner of the pig >ho can transfer that o>nership to someone else or >ho has page3*6' Page *6* it >rested from her control, because there is no one,to,one relationship bet>een her and her >orAing capacity or bet>een her >orAing capacity and the products of her >orA 7ere is the crucial factor that maAes it impossible to speaA of alienations in the gift economy )& Gregory stressed that it >as particularly bet>een e.change partners that a tie >as created by the transfer of inalienable things; the point may be e.tended, >ith Gualification, to spouses 4nalienability signifies the absence of a property relation )$ 8ather than talAing about Finalienable propertyF, 4 prefer to sustain the systemic contrast Persons simply do not ha"e alienable items, that is, property, at their disposal; they can only dispose of items by enchaining themsel"es in relations >ith others Whether bet>een e.change partners, spouses, or bet>een Ain, the circulation of things and persons in this sense leads to comparisons bet>een the agents 4tems cannot be disposed >ithout reference to such relations +nchainment is a condition of all relations based on the gift The ine"itability of enchainment re"eals a continuity bet>een Ain,based relationships and those of ceremonial e.change 4ndeed, 4 >ould argue that it may e.tend to barter and indigenous marAet transactions DGodelier *$%%; Ge>ert6 *$&0E in so far as people are tied to a perception of traders as enemies, "ictors, strangers, or >hate"er and thus to comparison bet>een themsel"es and these outsiders And 7agen men might attempt to transform domestic sociality into political sociality, but they cannot do it by freeing themsel"es of enchainment altogether @n the contrary, they establish ne> forms of dependency in the reciprocity that defines e.change partners Partners compare themsel"es >ith one another This dependency in turn is a condition for the accretion of prestige; in this sense, the >ealth obJectifies persons, that is, their relations >ith others The difference bet>een gift e.change and commodity e.change is systemic; it is hardly admissible to decide that this particular transaction results in alienation, >hile that particular one does not @ne cannot tell by inspection -or sometimes it is suggested that all that is at issue is the continuing Fo>nershipF or, if not that, FcontrolF e.ercised by the producer or transactor Thus 4 understand -eilFs insistence that Tombema >omenFs Fo>nershipF of the pigs they produce means that their FlaborF is not alienated 0' This assumes that alienation occurs >here the original person loses control o"er >hat happens to the item in Guestion The e"idence no> to hand suggests the follo>ing obJections, among others -irst, it is not page3*6* Page *6) of course the relationship to the item >hich should be considered but relations through others >ith respect to the item and thus to the Ainds of debts that are created The cultural form of relationships becomes pertinent -or instance, the Melanesian idea that >orA is e"idence of and go"erned by the mind precludes its appropriation: one personFs mind cannot be put to anotherFs use; instead, it is through appeals to the mind that people try to e.ert influence Second, one cannot argue that >omenFs >orA is not alienated as long as >omen are looAing after pigs, but it is once the pigs are disposed of +ither >orA is aliena)le or it is not Alienation occurs at the point at >hich its obJectified social "alue, as labor, is determined in such a >ay as to preclude it as a "alue for the laborer @ne might en"isage that alienation occurs >hen the products of >orA are classified as >ealth, but in fact, if >orA is not in a technical sense labor, >e lacA the crucial middle term that maAes sense of the shorthand that >orA is simply con"erted into >ealth -inally, in a commodity economy >here all obJectifications are alienable, if oneFs o>n products are enJoyed as Dpri"ateE property, this does not mean they are not alienable from oneFs person +"en if it is the personFs o>n labor that created it, the item no> stands in contradistinction to his or her subJecti"e agency Simply o>ning >hat you ha"e made does not preclude its alienability @n the contrary, >hat is o>ned, so to speaA, is control o"er the conditions of its alienation -or the possibility of DfutureE alienation has already created a di"ision bet>een the self and its products 0*

7agen >i"es are clearly put into the position of FhelpingF their husbands to gain names >hile they themsel"es gain none :et the character of this domination is not to be grasped by assimilating it to the e.ploitation of labor in commodity economies The Western concept of e.ploitation rests ultimately on the idea that "iolence can be done to a supposed intrinsic relation bet>een the self as subJect and its reali6ation in the obJects of its acti"ities 4 ha"e stressed that this entails a "ie> of agents as single entities, as singular authors of >hat they maAe and do The partibility of persons under the regime of a gift economy is "ery different from the positi"e or negati"e, but either >ay FunnaturalF, di"iding of the F>holeF self in a commodity regime 4n a society such as 7agen, persons do not ha"e to stri"e for singular identities in the domain in >hich they are produced, "i6 , that of domestic Ainship @ther items are also produced here As >e ha"e seen, these products are multiply created That is, food fed to a pig by the >ife is gro>n on land of the husbandFs clan, cleared by the husband, page3*6) Page *60 planted by the >ife, and only an e.ogenous theory of labor e.traction >ould hierarchi6e these mutual in"estments /either husband nor >ife can claim sole o>nership "is,P,"is one another, because the relationship bet>een them is constituted on a differentiated input of >orA into Joint products Sole Fo>nershipF is claimed by the husband only "is,P,"is other husbands, in the sphere of ceremonial e.change The situation is not closed to manipulation 4ndi"iduals >anting to maAe claims in one conte.t >ill force their cross,se. partner to enable them to put the claim for>ard 4t may >ell be against his >ifeFs >ishes that a husband taAes off a pig for a particular purpose; yet though she may be screaming out her obJections, he has not e.tracted it from her to dispose of >ithout further regard 8emo"ing the pig from the house stalls to display on the ceremonial ground does not remo"e his obligations As far as that pig is concerned, the husband is still obliged >hen the time comes to yield her part in it, by handing o"er porA >hen, at the end of a chain of transactions, pigs are Ailled, or by replacing that pig >hen li"e pigs come bacA in return 4n fact, >omen are liAely to recei"e something both >ays, and on the basis of a pig being sent a>ay, >ill get bacA both porA and more pigs and in the interim may lay claim to other pigs that come in to the household from unrelated transactions 4f >orA produces relationships, menFs o>n >orA embedded in domestic relationships, as bet>een husband and >ife, is eclipsed -rom the point of "ie> of the collecti"e acti"ities of ceremonial e.change, particularistic domestic relations come to appear subordinate :et >hat is transformed is not the >orA >hich the husband contributed to>ards Joint production, any more than it is his >ifeFs >orA, for that input remains intact in the relationship bet>een the spouses What is transformed is the part >hich this source of his social identity plays in relation to his DmultipleE other identities There is a s>itch in the >ay items are attached to the person Thus the relationship established by the mutual contribution of >orA >ithin the household is differently constructed from the relationship established bet>een e.change partners @ne person cannot Fgi"eF >orA to another, in the >ay that a donor gi"es a gift Dor FthingF in the 7agen languageE to a recipient Such FthingsF appear to be created by transactions, not by >orA @ne conseGuence of the di"ision of labor is that a husband or >ife does not transform the >orA of the other into use for her or his o>n self The relationship bet>een >orA and moti"ation is important 4tems produced for the use of another are not subordinated to some o"erriding purpose that redefines the ends for >hich they are concei"ed, and hence page3*60 Page *61 their "alue to the ad"antage of one rather than the other, as in the classical sense of e.ploitation +ach acAno>ledges and consumes the products of the other as such !nder a commodity regime, purposi"e acti"ity results in artifacts; hence F>orAF can be eGuated >ith FmaAing thingsF, and hence a crucial relationship to in"estigate, as =osephides indicates, is that bet>een producer and product 7agen >orA is also purposi"e acti"ity but is directed to>ards effecti"eness in relationships WorA includes maAing things, but things are instruments of relations, and the creation of relations is not disguised WorA produces or maAes "isible a relationship, for e.ample bet>een husband and >ife A personFs acti"ities become o"ert e"idence of their intentions #onseGuently, the products of >orA are e.pressi"e of the personFs o>n mind, >hat she or he decides to do ;ut a personFs mind is Ano>n not only by its singular location in the chest; there it lies hidden The mind is made "isible in the conte.t of multiple social relations >ith others

+"idence of a childFs gro>ing mind lies in its capacity to see its duty to>ards others A person may thus intend to do things for another: the intention is her or his o>n but is directed a>ay from the self; its social obJect is another 0) A pig a >oman raises is e"idence of her effort; but her effort flourishes in the conte.t of an orientation to>ards her partner, and in that sense its outcome belongs to him as >ell That a >oman may regard a pig as under the direction of her energies is not at all incompatible >ith the conte.t of her regard, rearing an animal the husband >ill use in his e.changes 4f she >ants to maAe a point of dispute against the husband, then she >ill reclassify the social orientation of her >orA, not by saying that it >as for herself but Din the instance cited earlierE that it >as for a son The e.ample recalls an a>A>ard point 4 ha"e neglected an obser"ation introduced at the beginningthe unitary nature of the relationship >omen assume in claiming total control o"er the crops they plant Although men also claim similar control o"er sugarcane and other lu.ury crops, it is >omen for >hom these claims are especially important D4ndeed, menFs parallel FcontrolF is perhaps built on an analogy to >omenFs, much as >omenFs help in ceremonial e.change gi"es them an analogous FprestigeF to menFs E 4t is significant that this control is e.ercised during the gro>ing of the plants and to the point of har"est SubseGuently, claims on the >omanFs caretaAing taAe the form of claims on the har"ested food she has at her disposal; but during the gro>ing time, >hile the crops are in the ground, they are uniGuely hers as their planter page3*61 Page *6( 7agen "ie>s are not as de"eloped as the e.clusi"e proprietorship claimed by Gimi >omen >ho assimilate gro>ing things to their o>n substance Dchap (E 4n fact, the 7agen identification of the crops >ith the >omanFs person lasts only as long as they are also in e.plicit relation to the ground >ith >hich her husband Dor son or sometimes brotherE is identified The linA bet>een herself and the crop is "ia her particular concrete >orA @ne could suggest an analogy here >ith menFs contri"ances in ceremonial e.change The unitary connectionthe identification of the gro>ing plants >ith the >oman >ho >atches o"er themis a deliberate achie"ement in this sphere 4t operates to a precise effect to bring the plants to maturation @nce the crops are taAen out of the ground, they are no longer the >omanFs o>n 4nstead they are reacti"atedliAe the pigs that return to the householdin terms of their multiple social sources DThe plants cared for by the >ife >ere nourished by the husbandFs >orA on his clan land E Thus a husband has irrefutable claims on a >omanFs har"ested food, >here he >ould ne"er help himself to her planted gardens 4f >e >ere to argue that menFs deployment of pigs in mo.a e.ploits female FlaborF, in so far as >omen are ne"er in a position to reali6e the full FsocialF "alue of their >orA, >e >ould ha"e to argue a counterpoint for >omenFs claims o"er the crops they gro> When >omen pre"ent men from helping themsel"es to food gro>ing in the gardens, they could be said to deny the producti"e input from menFs preparation of the soil 7o>e"er, 4 ha"e labored the characteri6ation of gift as opposed to commodity economies not simply to conclude >ith an eGui"ocal e"aluation of the ineGuality bet>een men and >omen 8ather, 4 ha"e >ished to formulate the basis of the transformation that men effect in creating >ealth items Fout ofF the products of domestic relations The general enchainment of relations means that persons are multiply constituted There is no presumption of an innate unity: such an identity is only created to special, transient effect The transformation is made "isible, then, as one >hich turns multiple into single sources of identity +.actly the same process occurs in the association of >omen >ith gro>ing crops A multiple identity is o"erridden by her e.clusi"e claims At the heart of domestic relations, then, as >ell as beyond them, an effect depends on eclipsing the multiple or composite character of persons and things A theme intrinsic to these four chapters has been the relationship bet>een collecti"e and particular relations The relationship is e"inced page3*6( Page *66 in the contrast bet>een t>o types of sociality, >hich for the moment >e may consider in their shorthand form as characteri6ing political and domestic domains @ne comparison bet>een ceremonial e.change and male cult performances can be made e.plicit in this regard 4t holds for both that in transforming domestic DmultipleE sociality, men eclipse this sphere of their o#n identity 4t is an operation they perform upon themsel"es, for they conseGuently refashion their o>n "isible Gualities, and their o>n minds

That being the case, >e might asA >hat form domination taAes in a gift economy A preliminary ans>er can be gi"en through pointing to an interesting lacuna in the present discussionthere has been no reference to surplus Since it is the appropriation of surplus product that is held to lie at the basis of capitalist e.ploitation, an ob"ious comparati"e Guestion is ho> surplus is reali6ed in a gift economy Surplus is a problematic term: 00 a relationship bet>een input and output tends to be confused >ith the scale of production, so that it may e"en be argued that technologies of themsel"es lead to surpluses >hich can then be appropriated De g , that some horticultural systems produce an e.cess o"er subsistence needsE There is no doubt, as ;ro>n D*$%&E and ModJesAa D*$&)E maAe clear, that >ithin the Papua /e> Guinea 7ighlands considerable differences e.ist in the le"els of horticultural and pig production 4 >ould follo> ModJesAaFs comment that magnification of pig production is to be associated >ith the magnification of mediated forms of relations, that is, relations based on >ealth e.changes ;ut >hat needs e.plaining are the conceptual categories D>ealth, mediationE: the Guantity of goods is after the fact Sahlins D*$%): chap (E proposed an ans>er to the Guestion of domination by treating gift economies literally as economic systems As systems for the redistribution of goods, the e.traction of surplus taAes place at the point of distribution, not production The e.tractors are those >ho gain ad"antage for themsel"es in controlling the flo> of goods ;ut >e can add here a t>ist concerning the classification of that ad"antage /o conceptuali6ation of FsurplusF is reGuired 4n transforming subsistence items into >ealth items, men are not in the first place performing operations on these items They are performing operations on themsel"es and thus on their relations >ith others, much as initiators2initiands do in the course of their rituals They are altering the manner in >hich obJects are attached to them and the meaning these obJects hold for their identity This can only be done if they are seen to create one type of relationship out of another #oncomitantly, e"ery, page3*66 Page *6% thing turns on ho> the items that obJectify these relations are attached to and thus mediate bet>een persons The number of pigs >ould not matter so much if increment in ceremonial e.change >ere not defined as e"idence of oneFs capacity to maAe relationships The appropriation of surplus product is central to a commodity economy; those >ho dominate are those >ho determine the manner of appropriation 4n a gift economy, >e might argue that those >ho dominate are those >ho determine the connections and disconnections created by the circulation of obJects 4ndeed, if >e follo> through the in"ersely formulated root metaphors of commodity and gift economies, then >e might reco"er an important implication of =osephidesFs argument 01 #ommodity e.change in"ol"es a process, to Guote Godelier D*$%%:*(6E again, by >hich the essence of the commodityFs "alue FFdisappears in its mode of appearance L 4ts "alue, social and therefore abstract human labor, Lcan only be e.pressed in a form, the FeGui"alent formF, >hich conceals it by maAing it appear a natural characteristic of things L Gift e.change, by contrast, in"ol"es a process in >hich human "alue is made apparent Social relations are alternately eclipsed and re"ealed, but the partial concealment that results maAes a drama out of their potential "isibility 4f that process of eclipse and re"elation conceals and thus mystifies anything, it is the con"entions of reification And thus concealed, as >e >ould see it, is the e.tent to >hich the things that people maAe stand o"er and beyond them We apprehend things as imposing their o>n material limitations on the management of human affairs, including relationships bet>een men and >omen There is an analogy or metaphor here for >hat >e might >ish to Ano> about such management 4f analysis can maAe e.plicit the social relations contained >ithin the reified nature of the commodity, then it can also maAe e.plicit the dependency of the relations of gift e.change upon the nature of things @ne >ould understand as constraints, then, the symbolic con"entions by >hich social relations are indeed the o"ert obJects of MelanesiansF dealings >ith one another page3*6% Page *6$

PA8T TW@ page3*6$

Page *%*

% Some 5efinitions SpeaAing of the regenerati"e po>er that Tubetube people in the southern Massim, off the coast of Papua /e> Guinea, ascribe to shells, Macintyre obser"es, N>Ohereas commodity fetishism abstracts the human acti"ity that produced an item from its producer and ascribes it to the product, the ascription of reproducti"ity to shell "aluables ideologically reaffirms the centrality of human agency in production D*$&1:**0E To the far east of Tubetube lies Sabarl The >ealth items that there flo> bet>een people are said to looA liAe people, the shado> they cast being linguistically classified as animate D;attaglia *$&0a:)$*E ;attagliaFs description of >ealth items does not stop at discerning anthropomorphic form 7afted a.es and shell "aluables do not simply depict human beings but depict the relationships bet>een persons The Felbo>F of the a. represents the "ital turning point in a personFs relations >ith the fatherFs Ain; the strands and colors of red shell necAlaces not only refer to their procreati"e po>ers but to the relationship bet>een maternal images of corporation and paternal images of indi"iduation To state that these >ealth obJects are FpersonificationsF is not to set them against FobJectificationsF, for that implies an un>arranted double participation in the eGuation bet>een subJects and persons, and the separation of subJects from obJects, promoted by commodity fetishism @bJects are created not in contradistinction to persons but out of persons page3*%* Page *%) @bJects are so created through "arious o"ert indigenous eGuations Dsuch as the connection bet>een elbo> and a.E and separations Dmaternal Ain disconnected from paternalE -rom a Western point of "ie>, thereby concealed is the con"entional nature of such FsymbolsF>hat >e normally recogni6e as their Fe.pressi"eF character 4n our o>n >orld, >hether symbols taAe the form of people or things, they are, liAe all other things, regarded as the products of society and culture -or a commodity >orld "ie> sees >orA as producing things and regards relationships as created through the social or collecti"e o>nership, distribution DFe.changeFE, and consumption of things DSahlins *$%6:)**E Symbolic interests are set against material ones D;ourdieu *$%%:*%%E This holds also for symbolic FrelationshipsF 8elations bet>een symbols, >hether or not they are reducible to an infinitude of binary oppositions, are regarded as composing a classificatory system that orders its component units liAe so many segments of a society The relation bet>een a symbol and >hat it stands for thus occupies a position analogous to that of the commodity >ith its dually deri"ed "alues D8eason *$%$E or of the person >ho is a microcosm of the domesticating process #onseGuently, one thing can stand for another thing, >e hold, as a cultural e.pression relates to >hat it e.presses, and one thing can be con"erted into another under appropriate circumstances, as concrete into abstract labor ;ut in a >orld #here social relations are the o)5ects of people/s dealings #ith one another, it >ill follo> that social relations can only turn into DotherE social relations, and social relations can only stand for DotherE social relations Thus might >e imagine, for instance, the t>o types of Dpolitical2domesticE sociality to >hich 4 ha"e referred, the one created out of the other 4ndeed, although it may sound counterintuiti"e, it is also possible to regard the one as an alternati"e form of the other The contrast imagined here bet>een Western and Melanesian >orlds applies eGually to the nature of symbolic constructions themsel"es 4 doubt if the people of Tubetube and Sabarl speaA of one relation Fstanding forF or e"en Fturning intoF another We Ano> that on Sabarl 4sland it might be more appropriate to use the concepts of FsupportF and FcomplementarityF Supports Dla)eE are of different identity but assist one another: Lone item structuring or positioning an analogous one >ithout essentially changing itL; complementary relationships Dga)aE, ho>e"er, stress Lthe oppositional aspect of paired elements and the process of completing, or bringing to potential, one of the pair through the otherL D;attaglia page3*%)

Page *%0 *$&0:)$)E The Sabarl terms for the t>o types of relationship clearly distinguish them by their functions; at the same time, the one may be used as a metaphor of the other Dso that complementary relationships may be said to be supporti"eE 4t is no surprise that the same items Da. blade and shaftE or the same social persons Dhusband and >ifeE may be connected by either relation The fusion is not accidental: both principles are said to underpin Sabarl gro>th and health When maternal and paternal food are considered as FsupportsF for one another Dla)eE, Lpigs pro"ided by affines support the yams from the matriclanL D;attaglia *$&0a:)$)E, each positioning the other >ithout changing it 4n a ga)a relationship, >hich entails an internal relation of opposition, Lfat complements the bones and flesh of the fetus, completing the physical personL D*$&0:)$))$0E Mortuary ceremonies transform support relations bet>een certain Ain into opposition ones, and the terms can thus refer to the same items in different states The result one might note is that Lpaired complementary items are neither in balance nor e"er uneGual in any fixed sense Noriginal emphasisOL D*$&0a:)$0E We do not necessarily need to adopt the Sarbal formulation We do need to pay attention to the fact that it is the capabilities of relations, not the attributes of things, >hich are the focus of these operations And since >e ha"e already encountered the proposition that persons and things ha"e the social form of persons, >e Ano> in >hat form the obJectification of relations so appears in peopleFs dealings >ith one another The obJectifications are reali6ed in persons This, in turn, constrains the manner in >hich difference, and thus the basis for connection, can be registered #onnections bet>een social relations, liAe connections bet>een persons, ha"e to be e.perienced in terms of their changing effects upon one another 8elations and persons become in effect homologous, the capabilities of persons re"ealing the social relations of >hich they are composed, and social relations re"ealing the persons they produce ;ut re"elation also depends upon the techniGues by >hich one entitya person, a relationshipis seen to be differentiated from and to ha"e an impact upon another Persons appear as indi"iduated >omen and men >ith influence and po>er at their disposal; relationships appear to contain or e.tend peopleFs potentialities My account is thus lured into considering ideas about cause and effect The constitution or capability of one person becomes e.ternali6ed by he or she dra>ing out of another a counter condition This response in turn, of course, pro"ides the actor >ith the "ery e"idence of his or her o>n internal capability And the other is not necessarily page3*%0 Page *%1 another human being Munn obser"es of men from Ga>a 4sland, to the north of both Tubetube and Sabarl, that although Lthey appear to be the agents in defining shell "alue, in fact, >ithout shells men cannot define their o>n "alue: in this respect, shells and men are reciprocally agents of each otherFs "alue definitionL D*$&0:)&0E 4n lieu, then, of a theory of symbolic construction, as >e >ould recAon it, >e find a Melanesian theory of social action Action is understood as an effect, as a performance or presentation, a mutual estimation of "alue Such presentation >e might be tempted to call FrepresentationF; in indigenous terms it is perhaps better apprehended as FAno>ledgeF LA symbolic e.pression is the actuali6ation rather than the representation of peopleFs shared understandingsL D#lay *$%%:0E This description accords >ith recent re,thinAings of the nature of symbolic acti"ity, in critiGues of the supposition that >e can understand symbols simply as e.pressi"e instruments of meaning De g , ;loch *$&'; *$&(; Sperber *$%(; and among Melanesianists, 7arrison *$&(a; 9e>is *$&'; Schieffelin *$&(; Wagner *$%); *$%(; *$%&; = Weiner Nin pressOE A performance is not necessarily a performati"e 4 taAe an e.ample from about as far from Sabarl as one can tra"el in Papua /e> Guinea Writing of the Mianmin, a Mountain @A people near the >estern border >ith 4rian =aya, Gardner D*$&0E critici6es analyses of initiation and other rituals that regard them as simply instantiating by their acts a Ano>n state The aim of Mianmin ritual action is to change states and create effects, but not in the constituti"e sense by >hich performati"es are defined Mianmin so act in a conte.t of uncertainty about outcome, >hich maAes e"ery performance also an impro"i6ation A successful outcome may be Judged in the display itself, but this is only then to be Judged by subseGuent effects, in the long term affairs of the community Magical and practical techniGues Lare not intended to be FperformedF NGua performati"eO or follo>ed as a FcodeF, but rather used as the basis of in"enti"e impro"isationL DWagner *$%(:&&, emphasis remo"edE

4ndeed, WagnerFs is the most elegant formulation of this theoretical position, for it encapsulates both Western and Melanesian procli"ities, the idea of a symbol )oth as a con"entional, artificial e.pression of something already Din"entedE e.isting in itself, and as the in"enti"e desire to dra> out of relations and persons the innate Dcon"entionali6edE capacities that lie >ithin them Where the one rests on a linAing notion of arbitrariness DcultureE, the other rests on a notion of uncertainty Dand thus of po>erE, of a state not being a state in any fi.ed sense page3*%1 Page *%( The status of these constructs must be specified 4n the same >ay as the root metaphors of the commodity and gift economy >ere grasped as an in"erse construction, so >e may also grasp these differences in symboli6ation 4 present them in terms of a self,contained contrast #onsonant >ith the fictions through >hich my account is composed, the relationship bet>een in"ention and con"ention is liAe that bet>een person and thing, or bet>een consumption and production; the one concept conte.tuali6es the other And liAe gift and commodity, they necessarily deri"e from the symbolic practices of a commodity economy ;ut the predominance of one or other term may ser"e to capture the distincti"eness of an intrinsic cultural form 4 Guote Wagner: #on"ention, >hich integrates an act into the collecti"ity, ser"es the purpose of dra>ing collecti"e distinctions bet>een the innate and the realm of human action 4n"ention, >hich has the effect of continually differentiating acts and e"ents from the con"entional, continually puts together DFmetaphori6esFE and integrates disparate conte.ts D*$%(:(0E "nd )ecause )oth .inds of o)5ectification ta.e place in every cultural act Done in an e.plicit and FmasAingF role, the other in an implicit and FmasAedF oneE, it follo>s that e"ery such act in"ol"es the interplay of in"ention and con"ention D*$%(:1( my emphasisE 4f Americans and other Westerners create the incidental >orld by constantly trying to predict, rationali6e, and order it, then tribal, religious, and peasant peoples create their uni"erse of innate con"ention by constantly trying to change, readJust, and impinge upon it @ur concern is that of bringing things into an ordered and consistent relation and >e call the summation of our efforts #ulture Their concern might be thought of as an effort to FAnocA the con"entional off balance,F and so maAe themsel"es po>erful and uniGue in relation to it D*$%(:&%&&E The contrast is, of course, a techniGue of our o>n de"ising for maAing the suppositions of others FappearF >ith some autonomy in our accounts The chapters that follo> dra> on a number of WagnerFs o>n techniGues as >ell as allude to his 7ighlands ethnography -or the necessity for such de"ising continues, as must critiGues of this Aind, because of the tenacity of our o>n inter"ening metaphors The chapters of part * >ere intended to gi"e some sense of that tenacity and in places one >ould least e.pect 4t is both interesting and incidental that it >as a Melanesianist D9eenhardtE >ho in *$1% formulated the notion of a mode of thought that Ju.taposes but does not classify, and an historian >ho unearthed this prescience >ith a comment on that significant LbreaA >ith common habits of closure and >holeness, structures of the intellect and the bodyL D#lifford *$&):*&*E ;ut the breaA ne"er became one page3*%( Page *%6 @bJectification Where obJects taAe the form of persons, actions and acti"ities necessarily re"eal the person in turn as a microcosm of social relations What become hidden are the techniGues of reification, the con"entionali6ed assumptions through >hich re"elation >orAs :et such con"entions ha"e >ide ranging conseGuences for the conduct of peopleFs li"es 9et me try to maAe these conseGuences appear by continuing >ith the set of contrasts 4 ha"e chosen for myself #ritiGues of commodity ideology, >hich supposes that labor is a thing, point out that labor in fact originates in the >orA of persons 4f gift ideology supposes that >orA produces relations bet>een persons, then the countercritiGue might point out that >hile relations are sustained through the mediation of things, these things ha"e an independent e.istence and character >hich >ill also determine the manner in >hich relations are structured ;ut as >e shall see, >hat is crucial is not their materiality as such DSahlinsFs Fpractical reasonFE, the fact of them ha"ing substance that may be consumed2utili6ed 4t is the specific form or shape

they taAe that matters ;y obJectification 4 understand the manner in >hich persons and things are construed as ha"ing "alue, that is, are obJects of peopleFs subJecti"e regard or of their creation * 8eification and personification are the symbolic mechanisms or techniGues by >hich this is done These terms refer to nothing other than relations bet>een concepts: they embody certain concepts of relations My recursi"e formula is deliberatean internal play on the terms of a metaphor deri"ed from one component of commodity thinAing, namely its analogy bet>een things and persons 4f these concepts thus refer to anything it is to the forms in >hich persons maAe things appear and the things through >hich persons appear, and thus >ith the FmaAingF D,ificationE of persons and things That in a commodity economy things and persons taAe the form of things Dp *01E is encompassed in the proposition that obJects Dof >hate"er AindE are reified as things,in,themsel"es #oncomitantly, in a gift economy, obJects act as persons in relation to one another 4n using obJectification as a basis of comparison bet>een the t>o FeconomiesF, 4 maAe the assumption that one can so percei"e similar processes in each At the same time, one percei"es their difference 4f >e taAe symbols as the mechanisms through >hich people maAe the >orld Ano>n DobJectify itE, these mechanisms themsel"es may or may not be an e.plicit source of their o>n Ano>ledge practices The page3*%6 Page *%% commodity logic of Westerners leads them to search for Ano>ledge about things Dand persons as thingsE; the gift logic of Melanesians to maAe Ano>n to themsel"es persons Dand things as personsE -or the one maAes an e.plicit practice out of apprehending the nature or character Dcon"entionE of obJects, the other their capabilities or animate po>ers Din"entionE 4f 4 call these practices reification and personification then, in the first case people are maAing obJects appear as things, in the second as persons 'ersonification: separation and exchange: A helpful starting point is a commentary on Mar.Fs "ie>s of the obJectification of capitalist labor A summary of his position goes as follo>s: LN;Oy transforming the obJects of his en"ironment, man not only satisfies his needs and gi"es them "alue, but he also separates the obJects and maAes them his o>n The transformation of obJects into possessions is through labourL D@rti6 *$%$:)*'E The process of obJectification here establishes a relation bet>een subJects and the obJects of their regard that is Ano>n through the separation of one from the other 8eification is its o"ert mechanism And the reification of obJects is created through commodity e.change, through the eGui"alence of forms that Godelier notes Thus do the obJects of peopleFs relations >ith one another appear to be things, as may indeed the obJects of a personFs creati"ity, both encapsulated in the Western idea that >orA produces things The Melanesian personification of obJects is also established by separations ;ut the separations are constituted in discrete social identities 4t is the DsocialE separation of persons as distinct from one another that pro"ides the precondition for obJectification WorA DFproductionFE thus appears to produce relationsto gi"e the orientation of a personFs acti"ities "alue in the regard of a differentiated other Transactions, as in ceremonial e.change, may be considered in the same >ay 7ere a relationship is obJectified through items Dsuch as "aluablesE >hich pass bet>een donor and recipient 4n so far as they are FtransactedF, they ha"e a social identity different from the transactors This FseparationF is accomplished in turn through the >ay in >hich the relationships are defined Thus items become separable under the follo>ing condition: they are separated from the donor in so far as they are transacted >ith another >hose social identity is not that of the donor him2herself The "ery fact that the item is recei"ed by another means that its significance cannot be the same for the donor as before the transaction 4n so far page3*%% Page *%& as it mediates and thus has an effect upon the relationship bet>een them Ddonor and recipientE, it stands for that part of the donor in"ested in the relationship, appositely to some other aspect of the donorFs identity Thus FobJectsF are created out of >hat these persons can dispose of because of the social separation of the interests of the parties to the transaction 4n sum, relations are obJectified by persons and things being separable or detachable from one another, and this condition of separation is Ano>n, in turn, from the relations that ensue 4n this sense, the possibility of producing or creating relationships, of taAing some action >ith respect to them, is itself a precondition to separation or detachment

The processes Just described, ho>e"er, commence at different conceptual points The result is t>o symbolic modes that >e can call modes of e.change And using persons as the form in >hich obJectification is made "isible seems in Melanesian cultures to be limited to dra>ing on one or the other mode -irst, as in ceremonial e.change transactions, things are conceptuali6ed as parts of persons Persons or things may be transferred as Fstanding forF Din our termsE parts of persons This construction thus produces obJects Dthe person as a FpartF of a personhim or herself or anotherE >hich can circulate bet>een persons and mediate their relationship As parts, then, these obJects create mediated relations They are not, of course, apprehended as standing for persons: that is our construction They are apprehended as e.tracted from one and absorbed by another 5onors and recipients are conseGuently regarded as distinguished from one another by the >ay these items, such as "aluables, are detached from or attached to their persons The second mode 4 call unmediated 4t characteri6es the >orA of production Persons do not detach parts of themsel"es: >hereas in mediated e.change a personFs influence upon another is carried in the FpartF that passes bet>een them, here effects are e.perienced directly What are separately concei"ed as products of the acti"ity embody the effects in a different form, as >e shall see Persons are construed as ha"ing a direct influence on the minds or bodies of those to >hom they are thus related The capacity to ha"e an unmediated effect creates a distinguishing asymmetry bet>een the parties The content of this contrast may be grasped in many >ays Through mediated relations, items flo> bet>een persons, creating their mutual enchainment The items carry the influence that one partner may hope to ha"e on another Through unmediated relations, one person directly page3*%& Page *%$ affects the disposition of another to>ards him or her, or that personFs health and gro>th, of >hich the >orA that spouses do for one another or the motherFs capability to gro> a child >ithin her are e.amples @r one may thinA of the contrast bet>een the circulation of blo>s in >arfare, and the harm that one body can do to another because of its "ery nature, as e"inced in so,called pollution beliefs 5espite the absence of mediating obJects, these latter interactions ha"e the form of an Fe.changeF in so far as each party is affected by the other; for instance, a mother is held to Fgro>F a child because the child, so to speaA, also Fgro>sF her :et >hereas the first mode of symboli6ation is recogni6able to us through MaussFs description of gift e.changepersons transfer parts of themsel"esthe second >ould not normally be recogni6ed as a type of e.change at all 7o>e"er, the earlier remarA that social relations taAe the form of gift e.change is meant to include both mediated and unmediated modes >ithin a single type, for they are created >ithin the frame of a single conceptual system Though there are differences bet>een them, the differences are related to each other @ne cannot, out of the >orAings of Melanesian social action, e.tract one set of relations as typical of Fgift relationsF and another as typical of non,gift relations: the unmediated mode taAes its force from the presence of the mediated mode, and "ice "ersa 4 therefore use the nomenclature of gift e.change to co"er all relations, e"en though this produces the semantic parado. of there being gift e.change >ithout a gift The parado. in fact usefully points up the crucial absence Dno giftE that characteri6es the unmediated mode of symboli6ation To say that >orA produces relations and that transactions create obJects, then, captures different points of a recursi"e seGuence of re"elation Drelations as the obJects of peopleFs interactionsE The seGuencing is itself marAed by separations, as in the distinction the 5aribi of the Southern 7ighlands act upon, bet>een consanguinity that relates and e.change that defines DWagner *$6%E, or in the 7agen distinction bet>een production and transaction DM Strathern *$%)E 7agen gift transactions are specifically u.l DFcreationsFE in >hich FthingsF DmelE are manipulated Dmel in general are >ealth itemsE As >e ha"e already seen these obJects of mediation are not produced in the course of F>orAF D.ongonE, for that simply e"inces an orientation of FmindF DnomanE ) WorA has a direct Dand unmediatedE effect on oneFs partner 6.l, ho>e"er, includes display, political speech maAing, and the mediations of magic spells 6.l thus brings things "isibly to oneFs outer page3*%$ Page *&' FsAinF, >here .ongon e"inces the orientation of the inner and hidden FmindF

The analysis or critiGue of constructions such as these must be as follo>s 4n a gift economy, social relations are made the o"ert obJects of peopleFs acti"ities 4n the direct, unmediated acti"ity of >orA, the fact of relatedness may be taAen for granted Das bet>een AinsmenE, but >orA maAes the specific relations "isibleAinsmen do things for one another as Ainsmen should, as spouses also >orA >ith each other in mind as spouses should Transactions, ho>e"er, appear to maAe relations afresh, for the instruments of mediationthe giftsappear to be creating the relationship Transactions are thus e.perienced as holding out the possibility of relationships e"er ne>ly in"ented, as though there could be an infinite e.pansion of social connections 7ence =osephidesFs shre>d obser"ation about the myth that gifts seem to create gifts Together these modes of e.change compose an e.plicit practice of personification -rom the perspecti"e of Western Ano>ledge practices, ho>e"er, they conceal their o>n con"entions, that is, the further mechanism of reification Reification: the constraint of form1 Separations are intrinsic to the ability to percei"e DFpersonifyFE relations The acti"ities that 7ageners, for instance, distinguish as production and transaction are themsel"es composed of distinctions 4n the first case, the products of >orA are separable from those >ho produced them in that they stand for the relationship bet>een the producers 4n the second case, the transactors are separable from each other in order to create a relationship bet>een themsel"es The necessity to differentiate becomes an e.plicit burden of peopleFs interactions >ith one another DWagner *$%(:(); *$%%a: 6)1E ;ut the differentiation in turn >ill only be apparent, made "isible, if the correct forms e"entuate and the correct Fcon"entionsF thus hold This can be put another >ay The obJectification of relations as persons simultaneously maAes them into things in so far as the relations are only recognized if they assume a particular form 4ndeed, there is a "ery small number of Dcon"entionalE forms that >ill do as e"idence that relations ha"e been thus acti"ated They must display certain attributes +stablishing attributes, the nature of things, is not the e.plicit focus of these symbolic operations, but it is present as an implicit techniGue of operation -rom our point of "ie>, the operation thus conceals its con"entional base @bJectification necessarily reGuires the taAing of a form; Ano>ledge has to be made Ano>n in a particular >ay /o> Western, page3*&' Page *&* ers apprehend as symbolic a relationship bet>een an item and >hat it Fe.pressesF, as >e imagine a shell "aluable depicting a child, for the relationship is bet>een FthingsF each >ith their o>n form Where Melanesians personify relationsendo> "aluables >ith human attributes and human capabilities as they do indi"idual peoplethey must instead ma.e the form appear -or a body or mind to be in a position of eliciting an effect from another, to e"ince po>er or capability, it must manifest itself in a particular concrete >ay, >hich then becomes the elicitory trigger This can only be done through the appropriate aesthetic My argument is that relations are obJectified in a fe> highly constrained >ays @nly certain specific forms of interaction >ill be taAen as e"idence of the successful acti"ation or maintenance of relationships 4n being con"entionally prescribed these are reified: they,in,themsel"es hold e"idence of the successful outcome We might call these things performances Performances must thus be recogni6able by their attributes @nly certain performances, then, >ill maAe the relations that they obJectify properly FappearF 4mproperly done, the relations >ill not appear, as people dread >hen they taAe omens to establish the blessing of ancestral ghosts or tremble in their finery before the scrutiny of a critical audience The Paiela eGui"ocations described by ;iersacA Dsee chap (E maAe the point nicely 4n this sense, >e may understand the t>o e.change modes of personification as FreifiedF: their manifestation is prescribed in either mediated or unmediated relations The differentiating Dcon"entionalE prescription of these forms is hidden in so far as >hat they maAe apparent are the relations themsel"es The t>o modes of reification 4 am about to mention similarly hide the principles of their o>n aesthetic Their con"entional nature is made co"ert in peopleFs o"ert e.perience of these forms as in"ented, indi"iduated performances, for all they percei"e is their o>n acti"ity, freshly instigated, that FFNaOn inno"ation is an e"entL DWagner *$%&:)(0, emphasis remo"edE Three types of e"ent are acceptable indications that social relations ha"e been acti"ated through mediated or unmediated e.changes -irst are t>o performances that one might call the e.ternal and internal analogues of one another These both manifest replication What is replicated are relationseither e.tending beyond the person or operating >ithin the person 4f >e >ere to focus on the substanti"e form of the relations from our point of "ie>, >e might be tempted to call these respecti"ely the flo> of things bet>een persons and the gro>th of things >ithin a person 4n both cases, ho>e"er, the obJect of interaction is to page3*&*

Page *&) maAe relations "isible through their replication As an alternati"e, and it is the only alternati"e, relations may be made "isible through su)stitution, the creation of a thing that embodies those relations in another form The production of >ealth or children is ho> >e might phrase it #hapter +ight first analy6es the replication of relations through the Ainds of mediated e.change familiar in the anthropological literature and then touches on the replication of relations made "isible through unmediated gro>th #hapter /ine turns to the process of substitution by >hich relations are made "isible in a form other than themsel"es; the substituted effect is often staged as the transformed outcome of relations magnified through replication These latter are thus doubly re"ealed, as themsel"es and as themsel"es in another form The pairs of analytical contrasts Dmediation, nonmediation2replication, substitutionE participate in each other There are t>o manifestations of replication Dmediated and unmediatedE, >hich 4 ha"e described as the e.ternal and internal analogues of one another There are t>o manifestations of unmediated relations Dreplication and substitutionE, >hich may be considered as alternati"es to one another These permutations are made concrete in the imagery through >hich the performances are contri"ed This is the imagery of gender 4n my account, it is the final reification, the final constraint, but in the li"es of those >ho li"e it, of course, gender e.ists as a further enablement Gender What are the attributes to >hich 4 ha"e referredM The distinction bet>een replication and substitution underlies the staging of e"ents: those e"ents themsel"es must taAe concrete shape That shape is their gender And this basic, limiting aesthetic accounts for the paucity of modes that >ill pro"ide proper e"idence for obJectification +"erything must taAe one of a pair of forms At the same time, this aesthetic is the enabling condition for an infinite reduplication of the pairs themsel"es Gender is e"inced through >hat Melanesians percei"e as the capabilities of peopleFs bodies and minds, >hat they contain >ithin themsel"es and their effects on others #on"ersely, liAe the differentiation of relations into mediated and unmediated types, capabilities are made manifest through an internal differentiation bet>een male and female ;ut it is the capacity or capability >hich appears as peopleFs concern: the con"entional basis through >hich the attributes of maleness or fe,

page3*&) Page *&0 maleness are established is not apprehended as an artificial, symbolic practice Since all persons are defined in terms of their capabilities, it follo>s that persons can only be apprehended in a gendered form 4 note that the reference to persons here includes reference to indi"iduals; the ambiguity is important to my purpose at this Juncture The shape that peopleFs bodies and minds taAe>hether they are seen as male or femalebecomes the focus of their operations upon one another That is not the same as saying that they are al>ays in a se.ually acti"ated state @n the centrary, se.uality is a specific acti"ation of a particular gender state: for a person to encounter another of Fopposite se.F means that her or his o>n gender taAes a singular form 4n this condition, one person elicits a corresponding se.ual form in another 7e is all,male or she all,female, strictly >ith respect to that other When gender identity thus becomes homogeni6ed in a unitary, single se. form, the personFs internal parts are in a same2sex relation >ith one another 7o>e"er, the outcome of such acti"ation, concei"ed as a product of the relationship bet>een partners, taAes another form: it embodies >ithin itself a cross2sex relations 0 A personFs gender may thus be imagined as dually or multiply composed, and in this androgynous state men and >omen are inacti"e 4n their dealings >ith one another, persons alternate bet>een being concei"ed in a same,se. state or a cross,se. one They thus embody or obJectify social relations by e"incing them in either one or the other shape And, as #lay D*$%%E argues >ith respect to the MandaA category of nurture, they can conseGuently only e"ince a relationship in its already differentiated form Se.ually acti"e, a person elicits a cross,se. relation >ith a partner >ith >hom he or she thereby establishes an unmediated relation That effect is registered in that person Their relationship may be percei"ed as an outcome of their unmediated acti"ities and taAe the form of its productthe results of a di"ision of labour or procreation in >hich each has some interest The product Dfood, a childE becomes a substitution for that relationship: a dual relation conseGuently appears in a singular and composite form 7o>e"er, relations may also be elicited >ith a same,se. partner The elicitation, the creation of an effect through bringing separate entities together, can be achie"ed only if the partners become differentiated as subJects, their interests thereby being separated through the relationship itself As 4 ha"e already anticipated, in the same >ay as donors and recipients are created by their different page3*&0 Page *&1 interests in the items that pass bet>een them, so same,se. relations can be created by the process of mediation, the passage of an item bet>een parties already concei"ed as other than themsel"es 4ndeed, this applies to the internal as >ell as the e.ternal constitution of the body The e.change of items, >hich ha"e a dual "alue in being differently conceptuali6ed from the donorsF and from the recipientsF points of "ie>, thus appears to effect a replication of singular persons 4magining a multiplicity of persons of the same singular se. maAes replication "isible Similarly, the successful substitution of an unmediated relationship, as a child substitutes for its parents, is sho>n in its cross,se. or androgynous composition Single se. replication pro"ides an image of the flo> and the gro>th of items, but at the point at >hich flo> and gro>th is re"ealed, at the point of production DbirthE or consumption DdeathE, a cross,se. relation appears This is the moment of substitution 7ere production is analogous to consumption: the outcome of unmediated relations that substitutes for the relationship its o>n effect 1 Although it is only in a single se. form, then, that persons create an effect on others, as substitutions they also e"ince the effects of acti"e others upon them 4 thus regard gendering, liAe e.change itself, as significantly present both as a same,se. identity Dmale or femaleE and in its combination or FabsenceF, imagined, for instance, in the cross,se. androgyne 4t therefore becomes impossible in my account to thinA of gender simply as a Guestion of the relationship bet>een male and female That incorporates an inappropriate commodity "ie> >hich, in supposing that entities e.ist in themsel"es, reGuires e.planation as to the relationship bet>een them This is the se.,role model of gender >hich has dogged analyses of initiation rites, described in chapter 0 More generally, it underlies the current Western orthodo.y that gender relations consist in the Fsocial or cultural constructionF of >hat already has differentiated form through the biological se.ing of indi"iduals Dchap 1E Melanesian orthodo.y, ho>e"er, reGuires that the differences must

be made apparent, dra>n out of >hat men and >omen do As 4 understand the gift "ie>, at certain moments male and female persons may be opposed, as discrete reference points for the relationship bet>een them 4n itself being neither, the relationship is different from them and may be imagined as embodied in its product The DandrogynousE entity so produced, the obJect of the relationship, literally e"inces their cross,se. relationship >ithin itself ( +ach singular state anticipates future interaction, since it is as independent entities that male and page3*&1 Page *&( female persons then Join together -or this Joining to occur, a composite, androgynous entity has had to be reconceptuali6ed as singular, and in being differentiated from another as incomplete -igurati"ely concei"ed, FmaleF and FfemaleF e.ist as analogues of one another, aliAe in that each is a same,se. construct This recursi"e formulation cuts across the commodity,deri"ed "ie> that it is as Dfigurati"ely concei"edE indi"iduals >ith intrinsic DFbiologicalFE attributes that male and female persons are in a perpetual relation of difference We therefore ha"e to a"oid any presupposition that taAes the differentiated single se. state as a FnaturalF reference point 4f there >ere such a reference point in Melanesian society, it >ould ha"e to be dra>n from the root metaphorthe multiple person produced as the obJect of multiple relationships DmarAedly but not e.clusi"ely from the duo of se.ed parentsE 4n being multiple it is also partible, an entity that can dispose of parts in relation to others Gender refers to the internal relations bet>een parts of persons, as >ell as to their e.ternali6ation as relations bet>een persons 7ence 4 ha"e proposed that the Melanesian gender relationship upon >hich >e should concentrate is not bet>een male and female but bet>een same,se. relations and cross,se. relations We may apprehend them as the gendered forms of persons >ho must appear as either singular or multiple in their composition The one is a potential transformation of the other Although resembling categories belonging to the analysis of Ain terminology, my terms deri"e here from an e.tension of #layFs D*$%%E distinction bet>een same,unit and cross,unit relations in MandaA, /e> 4reland Se. has the connotation of a unitary state Same,se. and cross,se. relations may refer to identities held in commonan Fall maleF relationship bet>een the men of an agnatic clan Dsame,se.E; a male,female relationship bet>een brother and sister, in >hich the sister produces >ealth for the brother Dcross,se.E @r they may connect the parts of a persona FfemaleF clan member >ith FfemaleF >ealth at her disposal Dsame,se.E, or a FfemaleF mother gi"ing birth to a FmaleF child Dcross,se.E The encompassing relationship, bet>een same,se. and cross,se. identity, is the subJect of considerable attention -or the reproduced person concei"ed DobJectifiedE as the outcome of relations is itself nonreproducti"e The obJectifications of a gift economy conseGuently reGuire a double coercion: to ensure that reproducers >ill indeed interact and produce obJects DpersonsE; and to ensure that the completed obJect is itself transformable into a subseGuent reproducer What is true page3*&( Page *&6 of human beings is also true of food, >ealth, and the other items they produce +ach must acGuire a reproducti"e potency These coercions in turn manifest the e.ercise of agency in the effecti"e transformation of one gender state to another This applies as much to political as to ritual acti"ities The ha6ard of gauging >hether or not any particular e"ent has been successful engenders a general ethos open to change, to Ftrying onF ne> ideas and ne> relationships -or only effects "alidate procedures Such concepts pri6e us a>ay from ine"itably regarding culture as a structure of fi.ed points >hose interrelations must be e.plained Melanesian ethnography enables us to conte.tuali6e this selfsame decoding, inherent in the Western idea of e.planation, as the laying out of con"entional or literal DculturalE relations bet>een figurati"ely concei"ed DnaturalE things ;ut Melanesian ideas also impose their o>n drastic limits on the beha"ior of men and >omen, as ideas must @ne such limitation is e"ident in the fact that e"ery construction participates in another This is true for the relationship bet>een e.change and gender As ;attaglia noted, each can become a metaphor for the other Dsee #lay *$%%:0E Thus, the different interests of e.change partners can be metaphori6ed as though they >ere male and female to one another, and as though gifts, the obJects of mediation, >ere liAe androgynous children And the combined interests of parents in their children can be split apart by a metaphori6ation of parenthood as though it >ere the conseGuence of same,se. relations among men or among >omen, and the

child >ere an obJect of mediation liAe a "aluable To return to an earlier e.ample, cult displays in 7agen are on the one hand u.l, performances, a type of political acti"ity that in"ol"es the manipulation of magic things and thus creates a mediated relationship bet>een men and the cult Spirits; on the other hand, through conJugal and domestic idioms, cult preparations may be spoAen of as >orA D.ongonE for the Spirit >ho >ill attend to the personal condition of the participants DA Strathern *$&)b:0'&E The conseGuences of thus deploying people as persons, as the obJectification of relations, entails their being al>ays in a gendered condition: >hether same,se. or cross,se., their form either has an effect on others or e"inces othersF effecti"eness 7ence ;uchbinder and 8appaportFs obser"ation that in LtaAing gender to be a metaphor for the con"entional oppositions they impose upon the >orld, people establish fore"er those oppositions in their o>n bodiesL D*$%6:00E And there is a sociological conseGuence: sociality is al>ays presented as an alternation bet>een page3*&6 Page *&% one of t>o types This becomes the precondition for the domination that men and >omen "ariously e.ercise o"er one another The terminology of same,se. and cross,se. relations is, to say the least, inelegant 4ts repetition >ill maAe for a>A>ardnesses in the language 4 use ;ut 4 must regard that as a necessary dissonance 4 ha"e also introduced the concept of reification >ith deliberate dissonance, to dra> attention to >hat as outsiders >e may legitimately regard as Fe.pressedF or FconstructedF in these gender ideas #onstraints e.ist in the >ay in >hich certain o"ert forms are taAen as indicati"e of internal capabilities in things and persons >hich, in being capabilities, can also be e.ternali6ed in relations 4ndication depends on aesthetic con"ention Appearance is structured: the color and cur"ature, hollo>ness and hairiness, e.tendability and edibility of things thus circumscribe as much as they open up possibilities A hollo> container may present itself to our Western eyes as an incongruous mi. of radically different metaphors, female breast or male penis in the case of Sambia initiates; 6 but from their point of "ie>, it must be one or the other or both in combination -or the participantsF attention is directed to the crucial relationship of the encasing instrument and >hat it e.udes, to its capacity When they Ano> that, they >ill Ano> the gender of its form -i.ing Points Quite a plethora of terms has surfaced The nomenclature is incidental: it is the differences and identifications >hich they delineate that count ;ut the plethora itself is presented >ithout apology The terms cannot be summari6ed or collapsed by pri"ileging one of the se"eral contrasts as the archetypical contrast @n the contrary, each is a "antage point from >hich to thinA about others Thus, should >e thinA of the modes of mediated or unmediated e.change, or of e"ents as replications or substitutions, or of same,se. and cross,se. gender relations, >e may also thinA of the techniGues of personification and reification, of in"ention and con"ention, of the t>o types of sociality, and of the contrasts bet>een collecti"e and particular acti"ities, singular and multiple persons Any one of these discriminations affords a starting point for considering the others ;ut they are e.pansions and contractions of one another, tropes in a general sense of the term, not subcategories of a category or the species of a genus or components of any o"erarching classificatory system 4 am afraid it >ill not help the reader to get out a pencil and list them as though they could be held together as t>o page3*&% Page *&& columns of a table 4n any case, a con"entional table is held up by four legs, not t>o columns 4 do not JoAe Metaphors participate in one another The manner in >hich they so participate must be traced through as an act of faith in the details of the images that pro"ide the linAing thoughtsthe linAages being the anthropologistFs subJect matter The plethora of steps or stages along such paths are no more nor less comple. in Melanesian thought than the multitude of Fle"elsF that Western anthropologists disco"er in their descriptions of cultures, the FstructuresF they de"ise, or the range of FdomainsF into >hich they classify segments of society The >ay 4 ha"e presented the Melanesian ideas are bound to appear both too abstract and too concrete ;ut perhaps thus they >ill maAe e.plicit the nature of our o>n concretenesses and abstractions Politics, economic systems, religious belief, family life, or for that matter, ideology and cogniti"e structures, or relations and forces of production,

systems, and e"ents all appear to Westerners as manageably distinct le"els or domains >hose similarities or differences >e may then e.pound in sho>ing their relationship to one another 4t is of this orderof the order of the connection bet>een politics and religion, say, or of infrastructure and superstructurethat >e must comprehend the >orAings of a contrast bet>een mediated and unmediated e.change or of collecti"e and singular identities or of male and female shapes, and the >orAings of the contrasts upon the contrasts % The conte.ts of these operations are supplied by themsel"es: one FconstructionF as >e >ould ha"e it is the "antage point from >hich others appear Thus the replication of gender identity may be e"inced in either an e.ternal, mediated or an internal, unmediated mode -rom the point of "ie> of maAing things gro>, unmediated relations may be construed through either the replication or the substitution of effects At each Juncture throughout these operations a distinct condition is made Ano>n through having to appear as one of a pair of interrelated forms Thus >e could say that in so far as people thinA about sociality in general, they do so through thinAing about it as either a collecti"e or a particular set of relations: it presents itself so to speaA in one or other aspect @ne can act only in reference to the one or the other, and thus sociality is FimmanentF >ithin them +ach of this pair of terms may be figurati"ely concei"ed, that is, taAen for itself And it may be taAen for itself in t>o >ayseither as one of a pair of liAe Drather than unliAeE entities, as the collecti"e life of one clan or group is reduplicated in the collecti"e life of another; or it >ill page3*&& Page *&$ be made to appear not as half a pair but as di"ided internally, e.isting in itself because it encompasses relations >ithin, so at the heart of a clanFs collecti"e identity are its e.tra,clan relations >ith particular others The result is that, for the actors, the clan is present only under one of t>o conditions 4f matrilineally composed then it appears either collecti"ely as Fone breastF, Fone >ombF, >ith its o>n land, its o>n magic, or else as a matri. of particular e.changes that unite and di"ide brothers and sisters, husbands and >i"es ;ut it must be made present Social action itself consists in FpresentationF, in maAing such entities appear, and this is done through eliminating one or other of the forms My o>n critiGue has been that >hat the participants apprehend as an effect of their interaction >ith one another depends upon the aesthetic con"entions by >hich, in this instance, collecti"e and particular relations are contrasted 4n this sense do their actions depend on a prior reification All this is hindsight What must be supplied are the details, the e"idence The multiplicity of operations creates problems of e.position, and 4 merely continue a set of seGuences already begun 4 thus maAe the e"idence lie, on the grounds of my o>n argument, in the elucidation of gender relations 4 ha"e to sho> ho> things looA from its "antage point and thus that gender ideas F>orAF in the >ays suggested This >ill in"ol"e bacAtracAing o"er materials already partly discussed ;ut there are also e.pository problems in the "ery nature of the e.ercise, for as one mo"es from one proposition to another, each >ill ha"e the capacity to dissol"e into its o>n components The description could be ramified fore"er 4 must therefore bacAtracA in another sense: to remind the reader that >hat is no> presented as e"idence >as first apprehended not as an ans>er but as a Guestion, not as solutions but as problems These concerned specifying the nature of Melanesian gender relations in the first place, and the conseGuences for men and >omen My argument is in fact already implicated in its o>n seGuencing 4t has turned on a contrast bet>een the o"ert personification of relations and the co"ert techniGues that determine the proper forms through >hich these are recogni6ed The latter 4 see as analogous to reification in a commodity economy, though it holds a "ery different place in peopleFs Ano>ledge practices 4 ha"e suggested that gender >orAs as an instrument of reification, presenting FthingsF so to speaA Deffects, e"entsE as people assume they ought to appear 7o>e"er, this is really a particular case of the general contrast bet>een in"ention and con"ention +"ery discrimination, for e.ample bet>een same,se. or cross,se. gen, page3*&$ Page *$' der or bet>een pigs to eat and pigs to gi"e a>ay, or bet>een male and female procreation as #lay D*$%%:*()E describes for MandaA, pi"ots on a relation bet>een terms >hich itself remain implicitthe nature of the con"entional relationships is FhiddenF 4t >orAs simply as an aesthetic; the con"entions are ultimately aesthetic con"entions What people do is maAe the distinctions "isible And they then re"eal the Fin"entedF effect or e"ent, the distinction manifested in a particular form At e"ery Juncture in the e.position that follo>s, then, >e shall encounter forms that are re"ealed through distinctions, >hile the FconstructionF of the

distinctions themsel"es, the classificatory scheme they constitute, the symbolic relations as >e >ould ha"e it, remain implicit This interplay is an attempt to e"oAe MelanesiansF o>n preoccupations >ith secrecy and e.posure, >ith shape and >hat the shape contains At the same time, the a>A>ard plethora of terms is an attempt at maAing e.plicit and thus obtrusi"e the con"entions that to them appear in the incidental and in"ented guise of peopleFs actions and performances page3*$' Page *$*

& 8elations Which Separate The societies of the Massim briefly alluded to in the last chapterTubetube, Sabarl, Ga>aare all FmatrilinealF in terms of their Ainship organi6ation The affairs of >omen and men are, nonetheless, go"erned by constraints similar to those elucidated for the central 7ighlands dominated by FpatrilinealF Ainship ideologies 4ndeed, the Massim >ill ad"ance the argument in important respects, for it bears comparison through the nature of ceremonial e.change Although mortuary ceremonies in many of these societies should be gi"en first prominence, * my initial interest is in the e.changes that taAe men a>ay from their home communities While it by no means e.tends o"er the entire Massim, the o"erseas .ula is a principal e.emplar 4t is a good place to begin, if for no other reason than that the .ula has suggested itself to anthropological inGuiry as an integrating mechanism The thought of do6ens of tiny islands bra"ely linAed by sailors >ho ha6ard the seas in order to e.change and trade >ith one another forms an irresistibly concrete image Sociality, it is concluded, must be some Aind of inner dri"e to form relationships and maintain cohesion bet>een people >ho >ould other>ise remain strangers to one another Anthropologists conseGuently stress ho> the circulation of gifts creates relationships and integrates FsocietyF Dfor t>o e.amples, see pp 666&E ;ut >e shall not get "ery far in the analysis of gift e.change >ithout reali6ing that gifts Guite crucially se"er and detach people from people +.change is essential to the processes of personification through page3*$* Page *$) >hich persons are separated by the social relations bet>een them 4t is the relations Dtheir reciprocity, Wagner *$6%:&(E >hich differentiate them, for each is defined >ith respect to the other and thus has his or her separate interest in the relationship DGillison in pressE 4 suggested that e.change taAes either a mediated or unmediated form: it is Ano>n through its appearance as one or the other type The hidden con"ention on >hich these appearances rest, their reification, is that of gender replication 8eplication is imagined as the infinite e.pansion of same,se. relations

-ig * TechniGues of @bJectification 4 Mediated +.change: Partibility Mediated e.change dra>s on the indigenous image that persons are able to detach parts of themsel"es in their dealings >ith others 4ts effect is e"inced in the Fflo>F of items The manner in >hich "aluables may be detached from one person and attached to another is of consummate interest to .ula participants Munn >rites: The control embedded in possession of a shell includes not simply +goFs ability to get others to act in >ays that carry out his o>n >ill, but also his capacity for becoming the focus of the attempts of others to get him to act as they >ish D*$&0:)%&, original emphasisE +"erything turns on the influence people can e.ert 4t need hardly be added that the detachability of items has nothing to do >ith alienation; the parts circulate as parts of persons Again, ho>e"er, a concrete image inter"enes in our understanding The precious "aluables, after >hich .ula partners hunger, disappear on the perimeter of their "ision, to circulate bet>een the partners of partners, beyond the original per, page3*$) Page *$0 sonFs FcontrolF This has too much the appearance of alienation for us Dsee, for e.ample, the correspondence in Man *$&):n s *%:01'01(; *$&0:n s *&:6'16'(E Surely, >e protest, the item is no longer thought of as belonging to the original donor ;ut for the participants, the Ano>ledge that the partners are al>ays dealing >ith the FpartsF of other persons, anonymous or other>ise, is established Guite simply and emphatically through their gender @"erseas .ula partners are conceptually male The condition is brought about through their o>n separation from females, a separation that also establishes their capacity to mobili6e the parts of themsel"es that then appear at their disposal These obser"ations are prompted by 5amonFs D*$&'; *$&0a; *$&0bE analysis of e.change on Muyu> DWoodlarA 4slandE in the northern Massim 4t is important that he puts his argument about .ula transactions into the o"erall conte.t of male,female relations -or the separation of males from females is a double action 4nternal relations bet>een parts of persons as >ell as e.ternal relations bet>een persons are gendered, and separation is not simply a Guestion of men taAing themsel"es off in their canoes and lea"ing the >omen behind They ha"e to establish the gender identity of their acti"ity and of the parts >ith >hich they do indeed intend to transact, and that in"ol"es transforming the meaning of their o>n pre"ious actions 5amon supplies a Guite necessary digression on domestic Ainship &he flo# of #ealth: .ula1 The t>o significant a.es of Muyu> male,female relations concern brother and sister, husband and >ife The manner in >hich the acti"ities of the se.es are separated and combined means that people in these relationships ha"e different and particular effects on each other 5amon D*$&0a:0*00*1, 0*&E argues that bet>een husband and >ife, for instance, the man is producer and the >oman distributor The man produces food and children; the >oman di"ides garden products into those for consumption and those for future propagation and distributes his food to the child >hich gro>s inside her She thus completes the >orA the man has begun #hildren are regarded as being created by the husbandFs >orA ) A man transforms his >orA, as 5amon calls it, into the creation of persons ;ut, importantly, the products of this >orA are also separated from him: the children do not share his social identity since they belong to his >ifeFs DmatrilinealE subclan The distinctness of their social identity maAes his >orA "isible in the body of the child The child is not an e.tension of him but is his >orA in a transformed state, for it is oriented to>ard his page3*$0 Page *$1 relations >ith his affines, and that relationship is its conte.t To>ard the child, his relationship is unmediated: he FfeedsF it 0 5amonFs o>n argument is that FFa >omanFs children are in her group because they hold the credit she recei"es by "irtue of the loss of her brotherFs labour Muyu> matrilinearity deri"es from the debts engendered by the process of producing peopleL D5amon *$&0a:0*%E 7o> does a >oman FloseF her brotherFs laborM

The separation of a sisterFs and brotherFs >orA from one another is crucial to the production of children, for it contrasts >ith the series of transactions bet>een themsel"es and bet>een their Ain that deliberately combines the >orA of husbands and >i"es A couple first meet as entities separated by "irtue of their different subclan origins ;ut the >ifeFs >orA is e"entually combined fully >ith that of the husband When they taAe up residence on the husbandFs land, an e.change of items bet>een the affines establishes that the children are FhisF in so far as they are e"idence of his Dand not another manFsE energies They embody his >orA in a direct fashion, and the >ife >ho helps her husband contributes directly to FhisF producti"e enterprise The transactions that demarcate the nature of her contribution comprise >hat 5amon calls a short circulation cycle that concludes >ith her death Then, the husbandFs Ain gi"e at least one .ula "aluable to the >ifeFs Ain in e.plicit acAno>ledgment of the >orA she contributed to his enterprises 4t substitutes for her >orA and closes the relationship by cancelling the debt her >orA created; that is, it substitutes for the cross,se. relation bet>een husband and >ife -rom the brotherFs point of "ie>, the sisterFs >orA that he lost Dto her husbandE thus returns to him in the form of >ealth 4t is not >orA or food >hich establishes the subclan identity of the childrenthat is instituted in the separation of a >omanFs relations >ith her husband from those >ith her brother #ombining >ith the husband is being separated from the brother She participates little in his endea"ors, and indeed the siblings are enJoined to obser"e a distance bet>een them, particularly in reference to the se.ual production of those children This separation generates >hat 5amon refers to as a long cycle of transactions that only comes to an end >ith the death of the brotherFs children Although she has a lien on her brotherFs >orA, it is not translated into products that the sister consumes: she is Lseparated from her brotherFs ability to transform one thing into anotherL D*$&0a:0*(E 1 And because her o>n >orA becomes combined >ith that of her husbandFs, she is herself unable to produce consumable products page3*$1 Page *$( for her subclan 4nstead, she Dher >orAE is metamorphosed into a product of a special Aind -rom the >omanFs point of "ie>, the completed effects of her husbandFs >orA sho> in the De.ternalE facial features of his children; ( their internal subclan identity is sustained by ne"er,completed e.change 7er subclan alone e.ercises the right to recall the >omanFs >orA in the form of >ealth, and this process establishes the interests of the children as separate from their father 4t is they Dthe childrenE >ho can reclaim the motherFs >orA as a .ula "aluable, and they reclaim it from their father or the fatherFs Ain 4n this they are identified >ith the men >ho can maAe the same claim, their motherFs brothers @nly as members of a subclan do men reco"er a >omanFs >orA in a transformed state, as a "aluable -or F>orAF, of course, >e need to understand the particular Fdomestic relationsF Dbet>een spouses, bet>een siblingsE >hich the >orA maAes "isible 4t is these relations >hich undergo transformation The husband enJoys his relationship >ith the >oman as an unmediated contribution to his producti"e acti"ities The subclan enJoys their relationship >ith her in a mediated form; Muyu> conceptuali6e the >ealth as a FreplacementF they are o>ed The "aluable so singled out bears specific reference to >orA 4t falls into the class Ano>n as .itoum, >hich are those .ula "aluables a man deploys by "irtue of their standing for some part of his acti"ity ;et>een brother and sister, only the sisterFs >orA can be transformed into a .itoum, but it is for her brother Dor her childrenE that this is done Thus in a FmaleF form the subclan has FfemaleF assets at its disposal An informant once told me that a subclan >as FliAe a banAF When 4 asAed him >hat >as in the banA, he replied, F.itoumF, and these are the .itoum resulting from the metamorphosis of a sisterFs labour D5amon *$&0a:0*$E 4ndeed, the subclan cannot claim bacA a man/s >orA in the form of "aluables: on the contrary, the products of his >orA are only e"entually reco"ered as food And >hen a manFs >orA is said to be turned into .itoum, it is not for his subclan but for himself 6 4t is not ostensibly combined >ith female >orA and thus does not acti"ate subclan identity Men in return for .itoum dispose of things they appear to ha"e FindependentlyF made They speaA of .itoum as obJects they ha"e manufactured The separation of the .ula circuit from Ainship creates prestige specifically for men 5amon sho>s ho> .ula shell "aluables are concep, page3*$(

Page *$6 tuali6ed by Muyu> from t>o points of "ie> They are both .itoum, the products of male >orA, and m#al7veigun, items that compel reciprocity The distinction lies in their relationship to men ?aluables as m#al7veigun circulate from partner to partner, maAing a name for each donor, and thus causing the donorFs name to tra"el along .ula roads: These names are produced by e.changing the "aluables ;ut >hen one gi"es a>ay a "aluable it is said that oneFs name Fgoes do>nF, and oneFs partnerFs Fgoes upF @nly >hen the article is gi"en again to a third person does the first personFs name go up, the desired result of <ula action A person thro>s a>ay part of himself, his FhandF, and this self is only reconstituted as it is used to maAe other sel"es D*$&':)&'E What maAes the gift return to its original donor is the Ano>ledge that e"ery "aluable is somebodyFs .itoum What reappears in this aspect is that the "aluable is a product of that manFs >orA As something that embodies his acti"ities, it can substitute for the acti"ities of others As a conseGuence, .itoum "aluables circulate outside the .ula and may be used by men to obtain other products, such as canoes; no debt is created Also as a conseGuence, only someone >ho o>ns a "aluable as .itoum can taAe it out of the .ula in the form of a return "aluable classed as a replacement .itoum 4t substitutes for the one he lost 4n the conte.t of .ula e.change, the contrast bet>een the t>o appearances of "aluables has specific content As the product of >orA, an inalienable part of the male person, the detached .itoum brings compensation to the donor The same "aluables detached from >orA, from the personFs particularistic social identities, carry a FnameF, the Lsocial circulation of the selfL DMunn *$%%:('E % This creates an identity for the actor concei"ed not as part of himself but himself as a part of a collecti"itya name in the .ula ring A Weiner D*$%6:)0)E Guotes a Trobriand man saying Lmen on -ergusson 4sland do not Ano> my face, but from my .ula "aluables they Ano> my name and my fatherFs name L To turn a Muyu> aphorism, one has to lose Done identityE in order to gain DanotherE 5amon D*$&':)&1E introduces a distinction bet>een metaphorical and metonymical constructions in reference to the different >ays in >hich .ula "aluables refer to the loss and gain of identities ?aluables are metaphors for persons in that their circulation in the .ula FisF the circulation of the personFs name At the same time, these "aluables are created metonymically, in so far as .itoum is a DdisposableE part of the male person 4n despatching .itoum into circulation, and creating debts page3*$6 Page *$% and the passage of other "aluables appropriatable not as .itoum but only as m#al7veigun, a man has transformed an internal part of himself Dhis F>orAFE into an e.ternal name A metonym becomes a metaphor And that, from the point of "ie> of other men in the .ula e.change, is all that he is: he is nothing but the part that he plays in Aeeping the .ula mo"ing Parts match one another; there is no process of loss and substitution but the perpetual creation of debt The multiple person is transformed into a unitary entity: the man becomes his prestige While Muyu> appreciate that all .ula "aluables some>here are somebodyFs .itoum, they can also treat the circulation of debts bet>een men as a closed system in"ol"ing the singular identity of men as name,carriers The internally partible or multiple constitution of men is thus eclipsed At this point, >e should recall that .itoum also originate in a sisterFs or motherFs >orA, and it is relations bet>een men and >omen >hich are also eclipsed We ha"e seen that >hen .itoum enter the .ula system they do so as signs of male >orA alone #oncealed in Muyu> saying that m#al7veigun is somebodyFs .itoum is that they mean somebody in"ol"ed in the .ula, a male somebody 4ndeed, only in reference to a male can a >omanFs >orA itself appear as >ealth ;ut it is a particulari6ed or differentiated male, brother Dor sonE not husband The >omanFs >orA is construed as disposable only in reference to these male Ain 4f men can reali6e their sisterFs >orA in such .itoum, it follo>s that this reali6ation simultaneously represents her >orA as a FpartF of this Aind of man and as FdetachableF from him The sisterFs "alue for the Ainsman is that he alone reappropriates the >orA as .itoum 7er >orA is an inalienable yet disposable part of his identity, by contrast >ith the temporary relation arising from the combination of her >orA >ith her husbandFs This disposability is the basis for creating a class of items D.ula "aluablesE appearing as one or other type, >hich can be used to mediate relations bet>een men

Although 4 ha"e spoAen of loss, the detachment of m#al7veigun is not the same as the detachment of .itoum & What comes bacA for a manFs .itoum is a FcompensationF Danother .itoumE that substitutes for the cross,se. relation bet>een the male person and the female parts at his disposal What comes bacA for m#al7veigun is an item in a cross,se. relation to the one that >as gi"en a>aym#al for veigun or veigun for m#al The one is specifically matched >ith the other ;ut it is not in the sense of .itoum a substitution, any more than one se. substitutes for its pair 8ather, the matching creates a relation >ithin a relation: page3*$% Page *$& a cross,se. relation bet>een the "aluables, contained >ithin the relationship bet>een the same,se. partners, >ho thereby become separated from each other by "irtue of their different interests in the transaction The partners must appear as either donor or recipient, debtor or creditor And thus their FpartnershipF is implicit in the items >ith >hich they transact: m#al7veigun mediate bet>een them as the sign of their relationship :oung cites a man from Goodenough 4sland >ho contrasted loss through theft and inJury >ith gift gi"ing LWhen >e gi"e something maybe >e donFt Aeep it, but >e donFt lose it eitherL D*$&0:)0E They do not lose it, 4 suggest, out of some mystical notion of enduring solidarity, but because of the brute and >ily fact that one gi"es >hat is extracted from one 4n the nature of mediated e.change, the donor has been persuaded, caJoled, and suffered the sorcery of another in being compelled to yield the gift The recipient in turn percei"es his effort as a matter of e.tracting from his partner the anticipated outcome of their transaction The partner contains >ithin himself >hat properly should be the product of a relationship bet>een the t>o What from the donorFs point of "ie>, then, is a part of himself >ith >hich to enter into e.change, from the recipientFs is something to be separated and e.tracted from the donor -or the recipient depends on the donor for those obJectifications of the one relationship >hich he can use as obJects of mediation in further relationships; the donor in turn depends on the recipient to accept the e.ternal e"idence of his internal incremental po>er, that of ha"ing items of >hich he can dispose The recipient, >ith no interest in the donorFs particular Ain relations, sees him only in terms of the part he plays in the .ula, in terms of his name and his same,se. gender 7is tasA is to transform the other manFs same,se. relation >ith these items into a cross,se. one >ith himself, as a partner in his partnerFs mind The entity the other partner holds >ithin must be differentiated in order to be e.tracted; in distinguishing his o>n interest from that of the partner as potential donor, the recipient thus separates a .itoum from him and turns it into a m#al7veigun 7e maAes it seem as if he can Laffect the mind of the partner by maAing the latterFs >ill DdesiresE correspond to his o>nL DMunn *$&0:)&1E, thus effecting a same,se. mutuality 4n fact, his action sub"erts that elusi"e symmetry The difference bet>een the t>o transactions can no> be stated Kitoum stand for unmediated cross,se. relations, e.ternally created in the contrasts bet>een husband and >ife2brother and sister, and in, page3*$& Page *$$ ternally bet>een the differently gendered parts of a manFs multiple acti"ities Separate efforts are combined in the product M#al7veigun, by contrast, concei"ed of as a pair of male and female "aluables, are brought together by the efforts of one of the partnersthe coerci"e recipient >ho e.tracts one of them This effort distinguishes his interest and thus metaphori6es the partnership as though it too >ere predicated on an asymmetric, cross,se. relation Das though all m#al7veigun >ere somebodyFs .itoumE ;ut this acti"ation is only possible because the men are in prior terms of the same se.: it is merely the relation bet>een them >hich separates Personification through such separations enables relations to be seen to produce relations The circulating obJects of mediation elicit the possibility that one relationship is only the starting point for others, that partnerships can constantly be made to appear All that seems reGuired is a capacity to e.tract obJects The replication of relations stretches to the hori6on, for the illusion is close to hand in the replication of same,se. identity among men And >hat they create in their o"erseas "oyaging is already created at home in the manner in >hich a subclan residentially di"ides itself into its male members >ho stay and female members >ho depart: it is a collecti"ity of Dsame,se.E males that forms its community This gi"es us a position from >hich to ha6ard an analysis of 7agen ceremonial e.change &he flo# of #ealth: mo.a1 -rom the point of "ie> of the Muyu> subclan, brothers and sisters are separated in such a >ay that the sisterFs acti"ities return to the subclan in the mediated form of subclan children and >ealth As >e ha"e seen, it is >ith her husband that her energies are regarded as being combined -rom the point of "ie> of the 7agen clan, ho>e"er, the separation of brother and sister results in a flo> of >ealth to it

>hich is defined not as the reco"ery of its o>n substance but as the attraction of e.ogenous substance for >hich the sister is simply the FroadF; it must therefore be reciprocated in Aind What the clan appropriates as its o>n >ealth, by contrast, comes from the Joint acti"ities of the husband,>ife pair As in Muyu>, >ife and husband combine their acti"ities in an unmediated form Dthe direct effect each has on the other >as described in chap 6E ;ut it is out of that cross,se. relationship that one of the partners Dthe husbandE creates >ealth for his clanFs disposal The efforts of a 7agen man are thus directed simultaneously to>ards the alliance of the >ifeFs particular interests >ith his page3*$$ Page )'' in his enterprises and the separation of those interests in the regard of his o>n collecti"e relations >ith other men 4ndeed, clanship carries a special >eight in these circumstances; the respecti"e clan origins of the spouses a.iomatically guarantee the separation of their interests, as long as the clans remain separate All clans are separated by the crucial rule of e.ogamy Mo.a, >arfare, and affinal e.changes >orA to Aeep particular clans apart and sustain the discrete social identities of the spouses by reference to these origins Since it is the F>orAF of husband and >ife >hich is combined, >e can no> maAe sense of the pre"ious obser"ation that in transforming his relationship >ith his >ife, a husband is also transforming aspects of himself -or it is >ith respect to their Joint products Dprimarily pigsE that their interests must be seen to be split Pigs appear as either >ealth or food The cross,se. relationship DFfoodFE he enJoys >ith his >ife is eclipsed in the circulation of F>ealthF 7ence pigs are personifiedthat is, it is relations bet>een persons >hich is seen to maAe different obJects out of them @ne relation can only be eclipsed by another relation What displaces his relationship >ith his >ife is a manFs relations >ith other men ;ut, 4 shall suggest, the displacement is effecti"e because those same,se. relations can also appear as cross,se. ones 8elations >ith other men are not homogeneous; they too taAe one of t>o forms, those the husband enJoys >ith his fello> clansmen and those he enJoys >ith male e.change partners The differences bet>een these t>o sets of relations are mirrored in t>o separate male interests in the >ealth A man creates it for his clansman out of his relationship >ith his >ifethe product of that relationship is his agnatesF >ealth, e"en as their DbrideE >ealth initiated the marital relationship $ ;ut at the same time the clan only reali6es that >ealth through its capacity to create relations, through e.changes >ith other clans, >ho thereby pro"ide a man >ith his indi"idual e.change partners These are regarded as sustained by his o>n acti"ities: by contrast >ith Muyu>, >hen a 7agen man creates >ealth for the clan, he also creates it for himself 7agen idioms conJure images of detachment and attachment Wealth departs from and comes to the sAin What returns to a man in mo.a is something he made out of his relations >ith his agnates, but >hich, through his relations >ith his partners, he can reappropriate as indi"idually and separately his This mo"ement bet>een the t>o types of same,se. relations is the crucial construction that allo>s the return on his gift to be conceptuali6ed as increment -or 7agen mo.a is distinguished from the e., page3)'' Page )'* change systems of the Massim by the definiti"e notion of increment DA Strathern *$&0E A donor returns more than he o>ed: increment is conceptuali6ed as the addition of one Aind of >ealth Dmo.a Fon topFE to another Aind Dthe debt underneathE *' As >e >ould e.pect, the form in >hich >ealth items appear differs from that of the .ula "aluables, matched conJugally as they are in attraction and treachery Mo.a "aluables in circulation are not in themsel"es FmaleF and FfemaleF: pigs, shells, and money are not gendered @n the contrary, according to its beha"ior, any item may taAe any gender As attachable and detachable parts of a manFs identity, "aluables, in this guise, can be regarded as male or female, disposably male liAe the agnates DsistersE >hich a clan can besto>, or attractably female liAe the nonagnates D>i"esE it entices 4ndeed, it is the e.ogamic rule rather than the lo"e affair that maAes men and >omen, as though they >ere so many >ealth items, tra"el from place to place At the same time, >ealth items are also the composite, androgynous obJects that in themsel"es embody a manFs o>n other DdomesticE relationships ** +ach of these genders affords a metaphoric basis for the >ay in >hich men thinA about their e.change partners *) 4ncrement in 7agen mo.a appears through specific effects 4ncrement is FaddedF, liAe a part to a >hole, a structure that supposes a difference, Just as a male person adds female >ealth to himself Simultaneously, that >ealth may also be conceptuali6ed as a male augmentation of his male name, an e.tension of a male person /o> it is not the case that a FfemaleF element thereby turns into a FmaleF one 8ather, in appearing in

one of t>o formsas male >ealth, an e.tension of male acti"ity, or as female >ealth at male disposalmo.a "aluables besto> a gender identity on the relationship of the donor to his o>n disposable parts The identity is elicited by his mo.a partner being in turn metaphori6ed as either the passi"e female recipient of the male >ealth or the coe"al male >ith >hom a female item is e.changed #onseGuently, the partnership itself, in terms of its outcome Dthe giftE may also be androgynously concei"ed, the >ealth combining the male and female elements of the relationship bet>een the men, liAe the combination of >orA bet>een spouses :et the metaphor depends on Aeeping apart the connotations of F>orAF as a distincti"e, combinatory acti"ity /o "aluable is itself distinguished, liAe the Muyu> .itoum, as an embodiment of Fmale >orAF 4nitially 4 suggested that one could regard a male e.change partner as disposing of male >ealth as a clan does its agnates, and as attracting female >ealth as it does its spouses; here 4 suggest that a male e.tension page3)'* Page )') of the male self may be e4uated #ith a male ha"ing female items at his disposal @ne can complete the Guatrain The female >ealth he attracts bacA may also be regarded as male: it comes in the form of prestige What is attached or detached may taAe a male or female form The con"entional distinction that underlies these appearances is ob"iously that bet>een attachment and detachment itself +ach implies the other, but an image of Joint production or combination >ould not do: the >ealth that flo>s must be seen as both e.ogenous and as capable of being absorbed, at once on the sAin and e"idence of the inner self 5etachability is conceptuali6ed in the single se. form of the item Dmale or femaleE, for that creates a cross,se. relation bet>een the donor and >hat he gi"es2recei"es in substitution for his cross,se. relation >ith his >ife A man establishes an internal partibility bet>een himself and his o>n acti"ities2>ealth, >hich eclipses the part he contributes to>ards his conJugal relationship /o> the donor Ano>s himself as a single se. person Da male >ith either male or female parts to detachE because his condition is replicated e.ternally in his same,se. relations >ith his clansmen, and his mo.a partners 4n competing >ith his clansmen and e.changing >ith his partners, he separates their interests from his 7e thus also Ano>s himself as a single se. person in so far as they, according to their gender, elicit that condition from him 4ndeed, the one same,se. relation can be played off against the other And because they are not commensurate bet>een themsel"es, he is able to augment his o>n maleness, as it >ere, FaddingF to his name, that is, by adding relations to relations Through his mo.a e.changes, a man thus con"erts >hat he detaches into something "ery different from >hat he absorbs bacA What is returned is FmoreF than >hat he disposes The constant illusion that a person recei"es more than he gi"es lies in the "ery difference bet>een >hat he detaches from himself and >hat he is able to reattach *0 5amon elucidated the s>itch in terms of metonymic and metaphoric symbols, to refer to ho> the difference is construed Since this turn depends on the alternating definitions of donor and recipient, it also bears comparison >ith a situation that Sch>immer describes for @roAai"a 5uring the course of analy6ing ho> the @roAai"a, from the former /orthern 5istrict of Papua, use coconut, areca, and taro, Sch>immer D*$%1E distinguishes metaphoric from metonymic gifts The distinction arises in his discussion of a myth in >hich a man and a >oman e.change "arious items The obJects of social e.change are male DcoconutE and female DarecaE se.uality At one point, the intention is to establish page3)') Page )'0 symbiosis, and here gift and recipient are identified Thus the female gi"es coconut to the male, because coconut is male and appropriate for him While it is intended for him, it is important that it is gi"en by another 4n this transaction, coconut is a metaphor for the man, and an interdependence is established bet>een the se.es in so far as the one depends on the other for a gift that is himself At a further point in the story, man and >oman transact >ith each other as separate entities +ach uses his or her distincti"e obJect of mediation as gift to the other The female >hose nature is areca gi"es areca to the male; his nature is coconut, >hich he gi"es to the female 7ere the relationship of the parties, Sch>immer argues, is established prior to the gift and is not changed by it, and each in metonymically gi"ing a part of himself or herself sustains that distinct identity *1 The t>o procedures are Ju.taposed >ithin the one @roAai"a myth; there is a pertinent parallel to the de"elopment of Muyu> transactions bet>een spouses, in the course of >hich their >orA, coming from separate origins, becomes combined D5amon *$&0a:0'&E A Muyu> man courts his future >ife >ith

betelnut, considered female, and she pro"ides him >ith betel pepper, considered male; the substances are consumed together The one is made dependent on the other for internal definition When husband and >ife are fully Joined, ho>e"er, the completed relationship bet>een them is finali6ed through a set of e.ternal transactions The >ifeFs brother gi"es female things to the husbandFs Ain, >ho return male things, each side transacting >ith a same,se. part of themsel"es This is possible because their differentiation as sets of affines is fi.ed in the relationship of the spouses That cross,se. relationship, no> combined in their >orA, is the mediating obJect bet>een the Ain of each side; the discrete identity of the sides is not altered in subseGuent transactions Transactions in >hich partners ha"e a direct effect on one another Deach FcompletesF the otherFs identityE may in"ol"e a transfer of obJects, as in the instance of @roAai"a areca and coconut ;ut 4 regard the e.change as unmediated The obJects establish one partner as the otherFs source of identity, as a FhusbandF is created in association >ith a F>ifeF The gifts are metaphors of the act of constitution The metonymic gift, ho>e"er, creates a relationship bet>een partners distinct in its identity from either of them alone 4t is literally a mediation bet>een them, created through their interactions, as in the Muyu> e.changes bet>een husbandFs and >ifeFs Ain This is the conte.t in >hich persons, in retaining their separateness, are seen to ha"e parts of themsel"es to page3)'0 Page )'1 besto> The husbandFs Ain gi"e a husband, the >ifeFs Ain gi"e a >ife -rom the donorFs point of "ie>, the parts do not FbelongF to the other partner; they are parts of oneself, >hich in being detachable create something Fe.traF for both sides Thus the relationship bet>een them can be FaddedF to the identity of each ;oth sides appear as both donors and recipients, each adding this relation to their other relations, an incremental possibility in mediated transactions not present in unmediated ones 9et me spell this out -irst, a mo.a partner disposes of a metonymic gift The pig he gi"es a>ay embodies his and his >ifeFs >orA; but the pig is detachable as a part of himself, in the >ay the >orA is not, because the man has transformed his identity from that of a husband to that of a clansman *( The boundedness of the clan unit, liAe the sAin of a man, enables items to appear e.trinsic to it 7is clan identity also guarantees the donorFs prior social separation from the recipient 4t is important that conJugal >orA remains thus defined as e.trinsic to the partnerFs relationship because it is then made "isible as a part one of the parties brings to the relation, in his singular state ?is,P,"is his mo.a partners, that domestic >orA is irrele"ant Dsee chap 6E; the pig comes to his partners as e"idence of the donorFs prestige, and for the partner it is only the manFs prestige that is at staAe, his standing in the circulation of mediating >ealth obJects The >ealth he disposes of substitutes for his person in the eyes of these men Second, >hat a partner then reco"ers is a metaphoric gift, himself transformed in the regard of others >hich he attaches to himself, as his prestige 7e thereby depends on these others for e"idence of his o>n name Their identity is in turn created as a source for his prestige 4n summary, the metonymic gift mediates in a relationship in >hich the partners retain their distinct identities; the metaphoric gift establishes a dependency relation that identifies the partners, in an unmediated >ay, as "ersions of one another and augmenting one anotherFs prestige Secrecy in Gimi cults enabled the actors to play the parts they allocated themsel"es, being thus in control of their meaning Dchap (E The ritual established an e.clusi"e domain in >hich only certain sets of meanings had "alue; others >ere suppressed or rendered irrele"ant for the e"ent A comparison >ith 7agen gift e.changean arena in >hich the things men circulate acGuire an e.clusi"e "alueis patent Thus FnameF DreputationE encapsulates the >hole man for the purposes of his interactions >ith other men The >ealth that circulates his name becomes an encompassing metaphor of his prestige Things DmelE, >hether page3)'1 Page )'( male or female, are detachable from the male person; prestige is not To lose prestige in that sphere is to risA losing male identity 7agen menFs denigration of producti"e acti"ity as female and things female as FrubbishF, in antithesis to the gaining of FprestigeF, is a separation that can only appear because of the alternati"e possibility of men replicating a liAe identity among themsel"es 4n eclipsing domestic relations, >e ha"e seen that the husband reclassifies his o>n energies and acti"ities as a part of his replicable male self rather than as a part of the relationship bet>een himself and his spouse 7is producti"ity "isibly adheres to his sAin as an element he has the capacity to dispose of ;ut a condition for this capacity is collecti"e acti"ity, the presence of a

community of males, to adopt 8eadFs and 9angnessFs term, regarded as eGui"alent of one another 4t is because of replicated gender identity that the relation bet>een partners can also be regarded as an e.tension of the single partnerthat the relationship FisF his prestige 4tems can only be detached on behalf, as it >ere, of other men Men reconte.tuali6e domestic relations as parts of themsel"es, as though they lay on their sAin, a source of >ealth in their competition >ith other men ;y "irtue of the gender symbolism, they cannot normally personify as >ealth their relations >ith >omen 4 return briefly to the point that 7agen >ealth is alternati"ely conceptuali6ed as neither male nor female, but as an androgynous confection of both The contrast here is bet>een artifacts in an acti"ated incomplete Dsame,se.E and in a completed Dcross,se.E state The coloring of shell "aluables indicates this fusion of male and female characteristics Dcf +rnst *$%&; 9indenbaum *$&1E ;ut this "i"id fusion is created not only out of a relationship bet>een men and >omen: rather, that intrahousehold relationship becomes a metaphor for the e.trahousehold dependency of e.change partners upon one another 4t is also a relationship bet>een men that is signified in the cross,se. character of the >ealth items Perhaps this in turn gi"es 7agen men their sense of po>er, the idea that >ith such >ealth they could create ne> relationships The mediatory obJects in themsel"es, in their figurati"ely complete, androgynous form, present an aesthetic anticipation of the possibility that >ith them alone a man could elicit more relations >ith other men The illusion is close to hand in the >ealth of e"ery husbandFs household 5amon refers to the Muyu> o>nership of .itoum "aluables as representing autonomy: one appears indebted to no one for them Although there is no class of >ealth in 7agen ceremonial e.change >hich page3)'( Page )'6 is specifically debt,cancelling, the mediatory nature of mo.a gi"es men a similar autonomy ;y contrast >ith the dependency relations of domestic Ainship, mo.a partners are definiti"ely eGual and independent in respect to one another The enchainment DindebtednessE established by the gift is an outcome of transaction itself: only as donors and recipients are the partners uneGual Simultaneously, then, transactions indicate the capacity to create relationships and the ability to do so as an independent person Their techniGues are the same as the aesthetics of .ula: replication of same,se. identity among men 8eplicability introduces the possibility of measurement When men act as agents of their o>n domestic transformation, their agency is encapsulated in the term u.l, performance, creation, custom Dsee pp *%$*&'E Whereas >orA remains concrete, al>ays significant to the particular personFs orientation to others, u.l pro"ides a generali6able basis for comparison 6.l are occasions on >hich the measure of one man may be taAen against another; it indicates the success >ith >hich they act, precisely because it rests on the o"ert use of mediating obJects that bring things "isibly to the sAin 4n mo.a performance, men thereby set up a basis for ineGuality bet>een themsel"es The all,male collecti"ity pro"ides t>o measures Dp )''Ethe comparison may appear either bet>een the indi"idual members of a single group or bet>een donors and recipients >ho face each other on alternati"e occasions Men thus compare themsel"es according to >hat they ha"e in common, the e.tent of their name, their capacity to achie"e Some fail; yet because of the gender presumption, all FmenF may be regarded as part of the mo.a system, and all participate as apparent eGuals differentiated only by their performance An effect of mediated e.change, then, is to maAe relationships appear as though they >ere accumulated and increased by the flo> of things *6 This replication rests in increasing the "elocity of circulation: the more transactions pass through a personFs hands, the more he can transact The effects of menFs e.ertions are "isible in the multiplication of similar relationships, in the "elocity >hich registers the speed and range >ith >hich gifts flo> +"er FmoreF partners can be pressed into a manFs net>orA because of the common denominator that maAes all men multiplications of one another The simple categori6ation of male persons as potential e.change partners opens up contacts >ith strangers, brings distant persons close, or transforms differentiated Ain,based ties into partnerships for the purposes of mo.a *% The strenuously defended presumption of basic parity means that partners start from a premise of page3)'6 Page )'% no,debt, since debts are created through the e.changes themsel"es and not by some prior asymmetry A man can theoretically taAe any mo.a pig out of the system and consume it, and he can put any pig into it 7is po>er to e.pand relationships infinitely seems constrained only by his o>n ability to maAe his relationship >ith his >ife simultaneously of central and peripheral significance to the enterprise

!nmediated +.change: Transmission At se"eral Junctures, the discussion of mediated relations has turned on comparisons >ith unmediated ones As an e.change, an unmediated relation >orAs through the directness of the effect >hich partners ha"e on one another and, in the case of the metaphoric gift, creates a mutual dependency bet>een them each for their o>n definition They Fe.changeF identities as it >ere The present section focuses on unmediated e.change >hich appears, liAe mediated e.change, in the replication of entities 7ere, ho>e"er, it is the replication not of indi"iduals as singular, same,se. persons >hich is at issue but the replication of substance Thus >e might imagine its effect as bodily gro>th or as the transmission of bodily tissue from one person to another Gro>th does not occur through the simple increase of material mass The Melanesian body is imagined as composed of internal relations The generation of substance must therefore either deri"e from relations or itself compose a set of relations 4ndeed, both are the case: gro>th and transmission are caused by the interactions of persons, and occur as a direct result of interaction being duplicated >ithin the body 4 refer to the interaction as an e.change, >hether or not other items such as food are present, for reasons already offered Dsee abo"e, p *%$E #onsonant >ith the earlier emphasis of this chapter on the replication of same,se. identity bet>een males, it continues >ith male replication -emale replication is considered in chapter $ Although 4 refer to bodily gro>th, the alignment of minds could eGually >ell be taAen as an e.ample of replication through unmediated e.change 8eference to the replication of substance as the internal analogue of the replication of singular indi"iduals dra>s on WagnerFs D*$%%aE e.emplification of 5aribi ideas 7e argues that the 5aribi e.change of detached, partible things stands in apposition to the flo> of internal DlinealE substance >ithin a single >ife,e.changing or >ife,recei"ing unit Meat, >omen, and shells flo> in e.change across relationships not internally unified by substance Thus meat can be conceptuali6ed page3)'% Page )'& as an e.ternali6ed partible eGui"alent of seminal fluid D*$%%a:60)E 4n turn, semen must also flo>: men see themsel"es as needing to sustain its internal increase through eating the Juices and fats of meat, *& and their energies are thus directed to>ard producing more semen Technically, in my terms, the replication of parts of themsel"es, it is e.perienced as replenishment of >hat has been lost DWagner *$&0E 4n this respect, 5aribi "ie>s echo those of other 7ighlands populations >ho regard persons as possessing a limited Guantity of e.pendable life force Dsee <elly *$%6; = Weiner *$&)E The con"entional separation bet>een internal and e.ternal relations is tantamount to the personification of the body itself -or the Melanesian image of the body as composed of relations is the effect of its obJectification as a person 4n the partibility of its e.tensions into relations beyond itself and in the internal relations that compose its substance, the body conseGuently appears as a result of peopleFs actions +ither type of e.changemediated or unmediatedpersonifies the body; both depend, 4 ha"e argued, upon the aesthetic of replication We ha"e seen ho> replication >orAs to produce partibility; it also >orAs to produce internal gro>th and the transmissibility of substance What applies to human bodies applies eGually to the FbodiesF of food plants and to items such as "aluables >hose substantial capacity to attract >ealth can be transmitted to others 4t underlies magic and the con"eyance of Gualities bet>een obJects 7ere, ho>e"er, 4 am concerned >ith the bodies of people 4n their case internal gro>th beyond childhood is perpetuated through internal health Gro>th and health are intimately related; both are construed as e"idence that the body is indeed inhabited by a person, by the proper acti"ation of social relationships 4f the body is thus personified, so too are its physical parts We are dealing >ith the replication of substance that must assume a same,se. form Within that conte.t, the potential distinction bet>een male and female is crucial, and body parts are personified in being gi"en a gender identity as one or the other Thus >e may apprehend the apparent parado. that much ritual attention is paid to se.ual organs not because the organs se. the person, as it >ere, but because in her or his relations >ith others, the person se.es the organs They then become e"idence of the successful acti"ation of those relations Gro#ing )oys and marrying men1 4n a >ide,ranging conclusion to 7erdtFs D*$&1aE collection of essays on rituali6ed homose.uality in Melanesia, 9indenbaum maAes a direct comparison bet>een ceremonial page3)'&

Page )'$ e.change and the circulation of semen through homose.ual practices 4ndeed, she adduces FFthe shift from semen to shellsL as accompanying a de"elopmental Lshift from in"oluted forms of marriage and ceremonial e.change to more e.pansi"e chains of ritual and social connectionL D*$&1:0(*0()E Semen can be seen as an analogue of bride>ealth She then argues that >hereas in the circulation of semen, men e.change body products as parts of themsel"es, >ith DbrideE>ealth, they e.change the social labors of >omen Semen cultures, she suggests, simply mystify >omenFs contribution to reproduction; but >ealth items such as shells FobJectifyF and maAe appropriatable >omenFs horticultural producti"ity 7ence men in societies dominated by ceremonial e.change are interested in maAing >ealth >hereas rituali6ed homose.uality is focused on Lthe idea that men create menL D*$&1:01$E ;ut to my mind an intrinsic distinction cannot really be sustained bet>een semen and >ealth: semen is as much obJectified as its analogue 4ndeed, the analogue e.ists precisely because in both cases men define themsel"es as e.changing aspects DpartsE of their o>n identity 4n reintroducing the Sambia material described in chapter 0 to discuss the point, 4 also reintroduce the Guestion of >hether their rituals can be said to Fcreate menF *$ 9indenbaumFs interest is in the e"olutionary conseGuences of >ealth e.changeho> it creates possibilities for forms of social organi6ation from e.change different from those based on the transfer of body substance My o>n interest, ho>e"er, is in the internal differentiation of social forms At least as far as the homose.ual practices of the Sambia are concerned, men mo"e bet>een different modes of semen e.change, transforming their identities thereby, much as 7agen men do in mo.a 7o>e"er, >hereas the critical contrast bet>een mediated and unmediated transactions in 7agen distinguishes domestic from political acti"ity, here both forms of transaction operate to maJor effect >ithin the one set of ritual seGuences As >e shall see, 7erdt captures a further internal contrast in that bet>een direct and indirect e.change Dcompare <elly *$%%:))0ff E Male association in initiation cults, such as those found in Sambia, is marAed by the o"ert creation of ineGuality and asymmetry >ithin a body of men defined homogeneously as FmaleF +Guality bet>een male participants is achie"ed "ia a flo> of mediating substances among themsel"es; ineGuality by di"iding themsel"es in such a >ay that one set of men are seen to ha"e direct, unmediated effects on the other +Guality is made e"ident through the replication of same,se. Dall maleE linAs, >hile ineGuality among the males is manifested in cross,se. relations page3)'$ Page )*' The latter are essential for the senior participants to reali6e their intention to maAe the boys Fgro>F; the former essential to their intentions that >hat is gro>n >ithin each boy is male substance 4n the all,important first,stage initiation, )' both facts are re"ealed to the boys through the one de"ice They are made to learn that semen is a "ersion of milA, and that the male penis is a "ersion of the female breast This has been at once the significant disco"ery of 7erdtFs ethnography and the parado. that has fuelled his o>n analysis T>o maJor themes run through his presentation: the thesis of masculini6ation, on >hich 4 d>elt in chapter 0, and the fact that the rituals prepare men to marry and reproduce 7e maAes it clear that men are not fully men until they are parents The final stages of initiation are bound up >ith the birth of their children; and boys must first be gro>n before they can, in turn, gro> a ne> child D7erdt *$&)a:(1E 7erdt analy6es Sambia rites and beliefs about men in terms of their psycho,se.ual transformation The collecti"e secrecy of male ritual, he says, disguises the e.periential secret that Lmanhood and its supporting sense of maleness, comes not from >ithin, but from the e.ternal, humiliating process of ha"ing been another manFs se.ual insertee, thus enabling one to e"entually become a >omanFs insertorL D*$&*:)%&, original emphasis remo"edE 7omose.ual practices prepare men for heterose.ual relations >ith >omen The rituali6ation process forges a masculinity that is pitted against the feminine; boys ha"e to maAe Lthe transition from maternal attachment to rugged adult >arriorhoodL D*$&*:0*(E, but this process also prepares them for encounters >ith >omen The presence of female symbols at the heart of the cult has to be e.plained The all,male phallic flutes turn out to be animated also by a female spirit, or they can be conJugally paired as male and female Das noted on p *)6E To the e.tent that he is committed to a thesis of personal gender identity, 7erdt D*$&)aE treats the female aspect of these flutes as referring to pre"ious relationships >ith real >omen MenFs instrumentality >orAs, he argues, to detach the boys from their linAs to their o>n mother and fi. attachment onto male obJects 7e documents the e.plicit eGuations made by Sambia men bet>een flute and penis and bet>een flute and breast 4ndeed, the boy no"ices are instructed in the matter Through homose.ual encounters, the penis comes to FsubstituteF for the breast, as a source of nurture and as a sensual replacement for the mother

the boys ha"e lost Sambia are e.plicit: semen and milA flo> from the FflutesF 4n accounting for the eroticism that sustains page3)*' Page )** these eGuations, not to say the childrenFs emotional "ulnerability, 7erdt obser"es, NtOhe flute,oriented beha"ior, releasing feelings of helplessness and fear, supplants the mother as the preferred attachment figure by offering the culturally "alued penis and homose.ual relationships as sensual substitutes for the motherFs breast and for the mother as a >hole person D*$&)a:%$E 4n this analysis, the motherFs attributes are obJects that become detached and embodied in other obJects that replace them The flute acts as an erotic fetish The eGuation bet>een phallus and breast, he thus a"ers, is a fantasi6ed one, and he returns at this Juncture to Lindi"idual Sambia malesF needs to sense themsel"es unambiguously and to perform competently as masculine menL D*$&)a:&)E )* 4 >ould comment upon the singularity of the obJect Dthe flute that is both breast and penis, and the penis presented as breastE from another "antage point The singular form teaches the boys that the organ may be either male or female; but it also teaches them t>o other things -irst, >hether it is a male or female organ >ill depend on the person >ho acti"ates it: for the double penises of a FmotherF >hich nourished them at an earlier stage it is as though they are no> confronted >ith the single breast of their FsisterFs husbandsF 4deally, a boy is fed by many men, so this is also a transformation from a particular to a collecti"e relationship Second, the acti"ation itself creates a gender distinction: substituting for the cross,se. relation a boy enJoyed >ith his mother, the senior inseminator establishes a cross,se. relation >ith him The no"ice plays female to the manFs male,ness What he therefore also learns is that one cannot act as both male and female at the same time That the gender of peopleFs se.ual organs depends on >hat they do >ith them recalls the conclusion to chapter ( The supposition >as inspired by GillisonFs analysis of Gimi ritual: the flute that is breast and penis, and container as >ell as emitter of fluids, assumes an identity in the >ay it is handled 4n the company of other males, the Sambia initiate learns that >hat distinguishes males from females is not their appendages and orifices as such but the social relations in >hose conte.t they are acti"ated 4t is relations that separate the genders, male from female and same,se. from cross,se. The boys are made to act liAe >omen and are put into a deliberately uneGual position >ith respect to others of their o>n se. The difference bet>een male and female is thus created during the course of the rites, and it is a difference that turns on interaction, not attributes 4n other >ords, the flutes are not simply page3)** Page )*) fetishi6ed body parts of an absent maternal figure >ho is reconstructed into a male figure of desire; >e must follo> the second theme that 7erdt offers and see the fi.ing of gender as concerning the persons >hom the boys must become, and the relationships >ith >omen >hich lie ahead of them The singularity of the se.ual organ and its semen2milA also presents an androgynous form At one and the same time, the multiple origins of the no"ice are confirmed Dhe >as born and gro>n of both male and female personsE, >hile he must also Ano> himself as e"entually ha"ing a singular DmaleE part to besto> This de"elopmental seGuence is played out in front of the boys -irst, the older male participants of these cults embody the relations that produced them: senior men present themsel"es as combining the male and female elements of >hich they are composed The flutes, the initiators, stand as both mother and father to the no"ices And if one set of men act simultaneously as father and mother to the others, it is because they, too, are simultaneously the embodiment of a relation bet>een a mother and father The no"ice in turn drinAs a substance he may e.perience as either maternal or paternal in nature 7e is united >ith, or identified >ith, the duality of his o>n source through this dual nurture, and this identity >ith his male and female source establishes his o>n androgyny ;ut in order for a boy to be marriageable, he must also be able to contribute a differentiated substance to his offspring that >ill be the future FfatherFsF part as opposed to the FmotherFsF part he >ill encounter in the person of his >ife The boys ha"e multiple origins, yet they must come to their o>n >i"es >ith a singular male element to besto>

The ritual, then, accomplishes the further demonstration that >hat is combined can also be separated 4t is possible to detach parts of oneself The uneGual di"ision bet>een senior and Junior )) is also the basis for creating further differencebet>een male and female 7ere the initiators stand specifically as FhusbandsF to the no"ices >ho are their F>i"esF The seniors accomplish this through the flo> of detachable substance >hose social acti"ation establishes it as male Semen taAen in by the femini6ed initiand is itself masculini6ed 4n this process of personification, the substance becomes a FmaleF obJect by "irtue of the transaction itself These rites do not maAe men, that is, they do not masculini6e persons; persons masculini6e the semen 4n fact, 4 >ish to clear a>ay se"eral grounds on >hich the rites do not maAe men, in order to suggest one on >hich they do -irst, persons are not masculini6ed; rather persons masculini6e their o>n organs and page3)*) Page )*0 se.ual substance Second, they do that not to maAe the boys, as a special category, into men, but to ensure that they >ill ha"e the internal capacity to procreate, to be FfathersF And, third, men do not in any simple >ay maAe men because men are not in any simple >ay men They also ha"e an identity as androgynous beings composed of male and female elements; and they are produced in male form only in so far as they can, in fact, be produced out of an opposite, female form Dsee pp *)&*)$E @ne might imagine, ho>e"er, that in decomposing themsel"esin detaching parts of themsel"es to besto> on othersthe androgynous persons >ould thereby be femini6ed That is, the senior man >ould detach a FmaleF part and lea"e himself identified >ith his FfemaleF part ;ut >hat blocAs this outcome is >hat blocAs the 7agen mo.a maAer, >ho is also able to detach a male part from his male self and sustain it as a metonymic e.tension of his masculinity 7is masculinity is preser"ed by the cross,se. relation that he establishes >ith the recipient,insertee 7is FfemaleF partner returns him the Ano>ledge that he has besto>ed a masculine substance, because other>ise the relationship >ould not ha"e been acti"ated This being the case, the besto>al has a replication,effect Semen can be added to semen, and the boys Ffilled upF: >hat is transmitted to them thus gro>s them The boys can then be thought of as FmaleF; thus the metonymic transmission of semen returns to the donor as a metaphor for the collecti"e masculinity of all the cult participants What Fgro>sF the female,boy can also Fflo>F bet>een the male,men 4t is not as an indi"idual or as a member of a special category but as a part of a homogeneous male collecti"ity that a boy appears as a man -or as a FboyF he is already anticipated as a FmanF, as 4 shall try to maAe apparent Apropos the analogy bet>een semen and >ealth transactions, it seems that semen is not a.iomatically an e.tension of men, and is thus not innately male The re"elation of the cult being that male semen is also female milA, this androgynous substance is made male in the course of those unmediated transactions Dhomose.ual relations bet>een uneGualsE in >hich it assists the no"iceFs gro>th The relationship separates it from the donor, rendering the substance detachable Semen can then comprise a flo> of obJectifications bet>een men 4f one shifts from the initiator2no"ice relationship, >here both semen and milA maAe the boy gro>, to the community of senior males, it is clear that these men are also creating relations bet>een themsel"es 4t is the no"ice >ho becomes obJectified, besto>ed >ith a particular page3)*0 Page )*1 "alue that is both the obJect of and product of their interactions The boyFs ne> gro>th maAes these e.ertions "isible 7e is semen in embodied form The effecti"eness of menFs performances as males is thereby sho>n in these obJects; they do not transmit semen directly to one another but collecti"ely produce the ne> men from their body parts 4n short, the no"ice as a mediating obJect gi"es "alue to the relations bet>een the older men /o"ices, then, liAe the semen they consume, are mediatory obJects produced by the menFs transactions The flo> sustains relations bet>een the relati"ely eGual seniors ;y contrast, ineGuality bet>een no"ice and initiator casts their particular interactions into the unmediated mode, and >hat passes bet>een them is a substance analogous to food, >hich confirms the identity of the donor but alters the identity of the recipient: the one is feeder to the other being fed ;ut for the food to ha"e a replicating effectfor the homose.ual relations to Lincrease a boyFs maleness and build up his masculinityL D7erdt *$&*:)'1Ethe semen must also be attached to him as an additional DmetonymicE part 7ence the boys must be, as it >ere, already masculini6ed before the fresh process of masculini6ation is effecti"e This is done by maAing them momentarily into male "essels for the male substance

-lutes are initially presented on the "ery day that the boysF noses are bled, to rid them of bad maternal blood D7erdt *$&)a:($; *$&)bE The boys are sho>n that they can detach >hat is >ithin them, and are thus constituted as "essels, their bodies remaining e"en though the blood is e.pelled The flutes are themsel"es "essels for the female spirit >ho is to be a source for their gro>th, and its sounds are by analogy semen2milA: the spirit >omanFs milA is the menFs semen The gender of this internal substance remains, ho>e"er, importantly eGui"ocal This means, too, that the gender of the "essel is eGui"ocal A summary of the transactions >e ha"e been considering to this point e.plains >hy What the flute2penis emits is masculini6ed through a double set of social relations The substance circulates among Dsame,se.E men as detachable parts of themsel"es, and to the e.tent that the boys become eligible to participate in this flo> at their o>n marriage, the semen >ith >hich they impregnate their >i"es >ill also be male 7o>e"er, for the men to remain in a symmetrical, eGual relationship >ith one another, the obJect of mediation must itself be cross,se., at least so one >ould deduce from the aesthetic of mediated e.change in the .ula or mo.a Simultaneously, then, the semen must indeed also be milA, an androgynous or e"en female confection at the menFs disposal 4t can thus be page3)*1 Page )*( fed to the no"ice either as a single se. entity DmilA or semenE or as a cross,se. entity Da combination of both, the spirit >omanFs semenE The female status of the no"ice elicits the semen in masculine form, and it replicates the substance that fills him up and gro>s him 4t also reproduces, 4 ha"e argued, his o>n multiple cross,se. identity @ne may further e.trapolate )0 on the basis of some of the personifying idioms Sambia use When the boys hear the flutes, >hom they associate >ith the men, the flutes are said to be helpless infants crying out for milA D7erdt *$&)a:%&E :et it is the boys >ho >ill recei"e FmilAF Thus the boys, ca"ities for the flutes they must sucA, are already themsel"es flutes 4n other >ords, >hat the men detach belongs already to the boys, a metaphoric gift, in so far as the boys are constituted in a form liAe them ;ut the liAeness is the liAeness of both same,se. identity and cross,se. androgyny The androgynous identity of the substance that is transmitted comes from an androgynous container Dthe breast2penisE 4t is not milA or semen, but a FchildF The flutes are crying children 4f the no"ice >ho is made into a Fne> manF appears as a FchildF of the men Dsee abo"e n ))E, simultaneously he is endo>ed >ith the child that he >ill in turn endo> his >ife >ith 7e is already the child >hom he >ill beget )1 This is the "alue that no"ices gi"e to the relations bet>een men -or in this form they maAe apparent the pro.imate paternity of the senior initiators 4n ha"ing the boys recei"e a detachable part of themsel"es, these men are gi"en e"idence of their o>n future partibility: those close to fatherhood e.ercise the capacity initially on Fthemsel"esF, that is, on younger boys The boysF ultimate paternity, and their capacity to reproduce, is Guite e.plicit in >hat Sambia men say about ha"ing to fill their bodies up >ith semen, since they cannot generate it autonomously ;ut the parado. remains that fathers cannot directly produce fathers, for fatherhood is e"inced in cross,se. interaction 7ere separation is anticipated Mythology maAes it clear that the male partner Dthe senior inseminatorE is seen as maAing the boy into a female, creating another different from himself, liAe the >ife he is soon to meet 4n anticipation, the no"ice also is put into the position of his o>n future >ife D7erdt *$&)a:%'E 9indenbaum D*$&1:0(1E notes generally for societies >hich practice rituali6ed homose.uality that LNbOrother and sister seem at times to be treated as a single unit L 4n Sambia, brother and sister are dependent upon one another for their identity, though they are not regarded as producti"e in the >ay that is true DsayE in Muyu> )( This is a crucial page3)*( Page )*6 condition for other separations We return to the sociological fact that a man is liAely to be inseminated by the same social person DFsisterFs husbandFE >ho inseminates his sister, pro"ided the indi"iduals concerned obser"e the age difference bet>een Junior and senior D7erdt *$&*:)0&E )6 Although Sambia stress the importance of homose.ual partners being unrelated, in the same generation brother and sister potentially recei"e semen from the one source )% Affinity is thus anticipated in the rites themsel"es The FsisterFs husbandF stands in an analogous relationship to both, endo>ing the siblings >ith a parallel capacity to transmit substance in turn Dtheir respecti"e offspringE The semen from this man o"ertly completes the >orA

begun by the parents of the brother and sister; it also creates containers out of both their bodies -or semen is transmitted to both nonpartible and partible effect 4t has t>o forms Some of >hat is ingested contributes directly to the gro>th of the brotherFs and sisterFs body tissue, and cannot be further transmitted: it thus augments the >orA of their parents ;ut some of it remains as semen in the boy, thereby filling his body as though it >ere a container: the sAin and bone tissue created by primary semen is also >hat en"elops this secondary semen Secondary semen, in Sambia dogma, remains partible Most that the brother recei"es accumulates >ithin him as a pool, and its containment is made "isible, for it is this substance that the boy in turn >ill detach and transmit D7erdt *$&1b:*&)E The sister liAe>ise recei"es partible semen, but its Gualities are further doubled )& +ach type is transmissible but not for her in the form in >hich it >as transmitted: it becomes both the breast milA Da FmaleF foodE >ith >hich she feeds her child and the "ery child itself >ithin her >hich she en"elops Perhaps initial proof of the ca"ity >hich semen both creates Din nonpartible formE and fills Din partible formE comes from the emptying of the brotherFs and sisterFs bodies >hen they rid themsel"es of maternal blood gi"en marriage arrangements that encourage people to thinA in terms of sister,e.change, motherFs blood must deri"e ultimately from the FsameF clan source as sisterFs husbandFs semen )$ 4ndeed, a prime"al brother,sister pair could be imagined as producti"ely parallel, through the manFs transmission of semen and the >omanFs transmission of blood ;lood might thus be, as it so appears in other +astern 7ighlands societies, Fa "ersion ofF semen ;ut Sambia separate semen and blood MilA, not blood, is the cogni6ed female "ersion of male substance ;rother and sister are Joined, not by a complementary eGuation of semen and blood but by semen alone, in the single social person of the page3)*6 Page )*% sister/s hus)and #hose one su)stance they )oth ingest The crucial separation must be bet>een the partible and nonpartible types: for children to be produced, the semen that coagulates to form a fetus must be separated from the encasing semen substance of the personFs body /o> it follo>s that >hat a man does for his >ifeFs younger brother, other men >ill be doing for his o>n sister and himself 4t is these relations that guarantee that the substance a husband passes to his >ife Dand her brotherE >ill be different from >hat she already possesses Dcf Gillison *$&':*6%*6&E ;odily identification >ith the sister establishes a manFs separation from his >ife Persons cannot both act and be acted upon at the same time in Sambia cross,se. imagery And a manFs passi"ity to>ards his sister and her husband establishes his acti"ity to>ards his >ife and her brother What enables them to FproduceF children is the separation >hich then becomes concei"able bet>een the spouseFs internal constitutions Dthe relation >hich maAes each body both container and containedE Although the husband is thought also to contribute to the >ifeFs body Dthe containerE, this is only a contribution 7er body is made largely of paternal material; instead he transmits his o>n partible substance that becomes contained >ithin the >ifeFs ca"ity as an entity separate from her encasing paternal body Gi"en that it is milA, rather than blood, >hich is the Sambia female "ersion of male substance, there is a parallel bet>een the emptying of the male body through insemination and female breast feeding While getting rid of milA or semen may underline the "essel,liAe nature of the body, blood by contrast does not ha"e the property of further flo> 4t is simply discarded, and in being discarded it is FbadF, in contradistinction to the "ital filling and emptying of the semen sac2>omb2breasts 7erdt dra>s an anology bet>een direct and indirect semen transactions D*$&1b:*%(, *$1ff E Semen gi"en directly to a boy transforms him in so far as he gro>s thereby; it is an unmediated transaction, and its producti"e effect is achie"ed through its seemingly e.ogenous sociality @ne man inseminates another >ith semen from a different source Dsince the inseminator is an affineE than that >hich maAes up the recipientFs paternal body, hence the male2female asymmetry bet>een them The indirect transaction refers to the feeding of the inseminatorFs child >ith its motherFs semen,fed milA, for the fetus recei"es the fatherFs semen through the instrumentality of the motherFs body 7erdt suggests D*$&1b:*&'E that the >omanFs body is thus regarded as a transformer of male substance As long as the maternal body en"elops and encloses it, the fetus page3)*%

Page )*& gro>s The motherFs body does not nourish the child directly DMaternal blood does not produce any body part of the forming fetus, although it is tapped during the transformation of the semen into a child E There is no passage of substance from herthe fetus is fed only by further contributions from its o>n father ;ut its enclosure is significant This enclosing of an obJect signals co"ert gro>th 4n this sense, the >omanFs body duplicates the body of male cult members And among them, unliAe the passage of >ealth items bet>een .ula communities or 7agen clans, the circulation of semen occurs in a conte.t that 4 ha"e referred to as collecti"i6ing domesticity Dsee chap (E The o"erall result of the menFs closed operations is, in turn, not e.pansi"e flo> but inner gro>th The transfer of an item bet>een units DmenE >ho are aliAe Dsame,se.E is created through momentary asymmetry: donor and recipient become senior and Junior, male and female, to one another This asymmetry is not, as in ceremonial e.change, re"ersible bet>een the original partners; the Junior female can only become a senior male to other no"ices Godelier D*$&):*1E has dra>n attention to the analogue >ith generali6ed marriage e.change ;ut this Fgenerali6edF e.change bet>een men operates, as he notes, in a conte.t >here actual marriage may taAe the form of restricted sister,e.change 7is obser"ations for ;aruya hold for Sambia As far as the resultant Ainship identities of the cult participants are concerned, there are ultimately no e.ogenous sources of "ital substance Perhaps this is at the root of Sambia belief that semen substance is strictly limited in Guantity in the human population Perhaps too this leads to the perception of its e.ternali6ation as loss !ltimately, Ainship closure sa"es them ;y necessity, Sambia male ritual must be oriented to the reali6ed reproduction of children, and thus they orchestrate the initiation stages to de"elop from collecti"e rites to indi"idually centered ones related to the maturing femininity of the >omen assigned as >i"es Dtheir menarche, first childbirthE -or the marriage arrangements guarantee in Ainship terms the ultimate containment of their "ital resource The containment is anticipated in their Dgenerali6edE transactions !nliAe the illusion of ceremonial e.change, there is no infinite e.pansion of liAe units, no potential to increase the "elocity of flo> The illusion is that the flo> of substance remains locAed >ithin the community of males As 7erdt reports D*$&1b:*$)E, they hold on to the idea that semen transmitted to the boys is sa"ed for the men More than the gender of the transacted item is established: its particular Ainship source is also significant @r rather, those Ain relations establish its gender Wi"esF husbands must displace >i"esF fathers as page3)*& Page )*$ procreators Semen must be produced outside the >omanFs body in order for it to be different from the milA2semen2paternal substance of >hich she herself is also constituted, and the community of males detaches itself from communication >ith females to effect this separate production They ne"ertheless construct an analogy bet>een bodies of male and female FsiblingsF The siblings are FaffinesF to the same inseminator, prepared as "essels for recei"ing substance from the one e.ogenous source 4n so far as the inseminating senior males become FspousesF to the sister,brother pair, then the future husband is also Joined to his F>ifeF At the same time, men taAe action in order to render distinct their contributions as FfathersF -inally in the enclosed cult house they force upon one another the gro>ing and e.tending of the boys as FchildrenF +lse>here in the 7ighlands, the circulation of >ealth produces prestige; here the circulation of semen produces persons in the "ariety of Ainship relations Just mentioned @f these, fatherhood seems the most significant /o> >hereas prestige can be assimilated to a metaphoric statement about the >hole man, in the end fatherhood reGuires an opposite se. partner for its effecti"eness A flo> Dof semenE creates a unitary identity among the seniors, yet it itself merely replicates that identity, a trope for an anticipated but, until the moment of conJugal union, not yet reali6ed capacity 4ndeed, these imagined Ainship positions are all in a sense anticipations The Anticipated @utcome The replication of persons and substances in same,se. form is an aesthetic con"ention through >hich t>o modes of personification appear: mediated and unmediated e.change +.change maAes obJects DpersonsE out of peopleFs relations >ith one another such that the ability to create or enlarge certain relationships stands for the ability to acti"ate any So far 4 ha"e been considering the e.tent to >hich men maAe themsel"es effecti"e in their dealings >ith other men ;ut this is done not simply through e.tending relationships; it is also done through metaphori6ing one set of relations to stand for another, as occurs repeatedly in these instances bet>een conJugality and clan or cult membership The ne.t chapter considers more fully the >ay in >hich relations are thus turned into

relations, appearing in forms different from their original manifestation We ha"e touched on this as displacement or eclipse page3)*$ Page ))' 4n the further process of e.traction, the agency of one of a pair of persons is asymmetrically e.ercised upon the other At the point of e.traction, a mutual relationship is turned into a nonmutual one, and the relationship itself becomes embodied in an obJect that taAes a Guite other form Da thing, a child, an item of >ealthE The act of e.traction is thus reified in the embodied substitution Personification entails the possibility that one set of social relations can al>ays be dissol"ed into or e.panded into a different set Persons composed of one Aind of relation subseGuently appear to be composed of another, as 7agen men transform their identities from spouse into male, and from male into one of t>o typesclansman or e.change partner The entailment is also apparent in the recursi"e nature of Sambia transformations Gi"en that persons obJectify relations, 4 ha"e stressed that it is their internal capacities Dthe acti"ation of those relationsE >hich is the focus of interest ;ut for the relations to e.ist, they must already be there: persons must in themsel"es be >hat they can become The boy no"ice must already be a male "essel for the male semen he >ill ingest; the flutes2penises of the men must already be the children >hom they >ill beget; the semen must already be partible before it is detached The cue comes from GillisonFs analysis of Gimi rites for girlsGimi suppose that the girl about to be impregnated already has a child >ithin her D*$&':*60E To imagine that the girl is already a >oman is, of course, to imagine that she has >ithin her the capacity to bear children 4nternal capacities are personali6ed: the potential Dto procreateE taAes the form of its reali6ation Dthe procreatorE so that these capacities embody the creations of their o>n creati"ity To imagine that the Sambia boy no"ice is already his future >ife is to imagine that he has >ithin him the capacity to form a relationship >ith a spouse, he being dependent upon her, of course, for definition as a husband :et the capacity must in turn be made "isible, be made to >orA, and it must be sho>n in the only form possibleas its o>n outcome The capacity to bear children must appear in the form of a child >ho has been born; the capacity to act as a spouse must appear in the form of a conJugal union 4n +nglish this sounds liAe stating the ob"ious 4n Melanesian Das it >ereE people endea"or to maAe it ob"ious, to maAe these capacities thus obJects of Ano>ledge for themsel"es They must be e.tracted from the body that produces them The spirit child >hich her husbandFs Ain force on a Gimi >oman alters the identity of the original fetus; the menFs same acts also cause the >oman to gi"e birth, the ne> relationship page3))' Page ))* D>ith her husbandE separating the child from her body Sambia construct a persistent asymmetry in the relations bet>een men; the seniors gro> the Juniors, in a coerci"e partnership that maAes the boys the obJects of menFs acts -or >hat the men put into the boys is also >hat must be e.truded: the boysF DT the menFsE paternal potency As obJects of the menFs relations, the boys anticipate the outcome of their interaction The anticipated outcome gi"es the gift economy its cultural form Gift e.change has al>ays been a conundrum to the Western imagination -or it is, tout court, the circulation of obJects in relations in order to maAe relations in >hich obJects can circulate This is the recursi"eness of the anticipated outcome There is nothing particularly mystical or humanistic about it 4t deri"es, 4 argue, from maAing e.plicit a particular techniGue of obJectification, namely, the personifying mode in >hich the obJects of relations are al>ays other relations @ne calls others into e.istencea seGuence "isible in >hat people seeA to Ano> about themsel"es 4f relations conseGuently appear to them in such obJects, then these o)5ects are apprehended as )oth cause and effect of the relations And if >e taAe Fthe giftF as a shorthand for obJects DrelationsE, then >e can see ho> gifts pose dramatic temporal problems They are images of the possible collapse in on itself of any relationship of separation bet>een cause and effect The gift >orAs as the cause of a relation as >ell as its effect So concei"ing an obJect to be the outcome of a transaction posits its e.istence in the conte.t of transaction ;oth prior and subseGuent transactions are implicated in its "alue

@bJects can conseGuently taAe on the appearance of a possession to be e.tracted Dor stolen, 7arrison *$&1:0$)E from another This anticipation is also retrospecti"e; anything one has acGuired D>ealth, fertilityE may appear to ha"e had its origin else>here An origin may be acAno>ledged as a source of gro>th: >hat another has gro>n becomes partible for oneself A prior condition is thus transformed into its counterpart These interrelations follo> from the aesthetic constraints of gender imagery Transformation consists in altering the "alue that obJects ha"e ;y altering the obJects, ne> relationships become "isible, though >here >e might percei"e it is the meanings >hich are changed, the participants might imagine it is their appearance The bodily form of a Sambia boy changes under the acti"ity of his seniors; no longer the outcome of a cross,se. relation bet>een his parents, he becomes first an obJect of re, page3))* Page ))) lations bet>een same,se. men, female to their male, and then a partible male entity >ithin a male body in a potent state The possibility of so s>itching the F"alueF of an obJect maAes ob"ious that each relationship anticipates its o>n transformation What is true e.ternally is also true internally, that the outcome or product of a relationship is already contained in the relationship itself Thus mo.a partners are partners by "irtue of the >ealth that flo>s bet>een them, at once cause and effect of their actions 4n this sense 4 interpret A WeinerFs obser"ation that an FFobJect is both the sign of reproduction and also the action of reproductionL D*$&):61E ;ut reproduction only e.ists as a discernible acti"ity in so far as the gender of obJects indicates perceptible mo"ement bet>een same,se. and cross,se. relations We must return to the drastic aesthetic limit on the manner in >hich transformation itself is registered Since social relations are e"inced in one or other of t>o shapes, transformation is achie"ed as the mo"ement bet>een them; the medium that registers mo"ement is the replication or substitution of gender identity ;asically, actors mo"e perpetually bet>een being the completed Dcross,se.E outcome of the actions of others, and themsel"es Dsame,se.E being able to act in respect of another To put themsel"es in this latter condition they thus assume an FincompleteF gender The creation of a same,se. state seems a symbolic prereGuisite for separating gift from gi"er, the transacted from transactor @nly this separation allo>s the detachment of an obJect >hich can then be e.changed bet>een persons and signifies the relation bet>een them 5etachment maAes the person incomplete DSchieffelin *$&'E, and therefore seeA completion >ith another #ompletion is ine"itably anticipated in the oscillation bet>een creating the condition of an acti"e reproducer DincompleteE and the condition of the reproduced DcompletedE thing as e"idence of past action Same,se. entities are such acti"ated reproducers Dbeing of one se., they e"oAe their oppositeE, >hile androgynes are FfinishedF, reproduced beings, the sign of agency in others but not themsel"es agents Persons DrelationsE can only appear if they taAe a form The necessity to display one or other conditionone must al>ays )e one or the otherthus means that to be in a present state one is no longer in the pre"ious state: same,se. and cross,se. relations themsel"es emerge both as cause of and effect of each other 4n ceremonial e.change, >hat looAs liAe the recipientsF coercion to page3))) Page ))0 attract >ealth to themsel"es is also coercion on the donorFs part The recipients, ha"ing been donors pre"iously, are no> the passi"e cause Dthe debtE of the ne>ly acti"ated e.change Acti"ation e.tracts from them admission of the donorFs prestige They are forced to accept the donorFs gifts, acAno>ledging the debt they created in the past, thereby maAing themsel"es for the present inacti"e 4neGuality is essential to this relation, imitating the asymmetry of those unmediated relationships by >hich one party gro>s another -or only >hat another has gro>n can become partible for oneself D+.panded, of course, this states that the obJect of a relationship >ith one person becomes differently attached in a relationship >ith another E 4f gro>th occurs on the basis of a unitary identity bet>een gro>er and gro>n, it is apprehended as increment internal to the person Gro>th is conceptuali6ed as contained>ithin the clan on ancestral land, >ithin the body of male cultists, >ithin the si6e of the big man Gro>th is also secret and silent, Ano>n only by its effects ;ut to ha"e effect reGuires release of the gro>n entity from the body >hich contains it This act of production in"ol"es both force and differentiation: the male clan detaches its female >ealth in e.change; male initiates sho> themsel"es to >omen; a big man attracts e.otic >ealth as an e.trinsic adornment @bJects are separated from their source by the ne> relationship that they signify, and a

former encompassing relation Dsame,se.E is no> re"ealed to be internally partible Dcross,se.E @r a same,se. obJectclan strength, male initiate, a big manFs prestigemay be in"ersely construed as a product of a former cross,se. interaction: husband and >ife labor to increase pigs; the initiate is Junior female to the senior males; >ealth comes from an uneGual partnership bet>een donor and recipient FProductionF in either case Dgro>th and releaseE becomes concei"able only in so far as the produced entity is also e.changed bet>een persons; it e.ists in partible form The relations that thus separate persons in terms of gender also gi"e the obJect of their interaction its reified character 4ndeed, >e might say that the anticipated outcome is the aesthetic trap of the gift economy 8elations are obJectified in certain forms >hich leads to obJects appearing as things and thus in,themsel"es holding out the possibility of acti"ating relations 4n fact they can acti"ate only those relations that they can maAe appear 7ence the ine"itability of enchainment: one can only maAe appear >hat already e.ists :et chapter % began >ith a disGuisition on impro"i6ation and in"ention page3))0 Page ))1 The further idea that things do not appear on their o>n but must be forced into e.istence by peopleFs acts is the topic to >hich 4 no> turn #hapter *' dra>s on this discussion to suggest ho> the enchainment >orAs, in a >ay contrary to >hat >e might suppose, to create indi"iduals as agents and relations as the cause of e"ents page3))1 Page ))(

$ -orms Which Propagate There is one point on >hich accounts of male initiation ceremonies for the Papua /e> Guinea 7ighlands seem generally agreed: boys are represented as ha"ing to be separated from the domestic sphere >here they >ere nurtured Separation is construed as remo"al from maternal influence, >ith no doubt about the e.tracti"e idiom The children must be torn from their mothers Whether or not there is accompanying female initiation, the parallel >ith the boysF bride,to,be is sometimes o"erlooAed As is clear from Gimi practices, a girl must in turn be detached from paternal influence, separated from an identification >ith her o>n father Simultaneously, she becomes e"idence of successful transactions bet>een men 4t is into this conte.t that idioms of marriage e.change must be put 7ighlanders may liAen marriage e.change to the ceremonial e.change of other gifts >hose effect is to create ultimate parity bet>een male partners; but they also maAe the marrying of >omen, liAe the initiating of men, into a forcible process of e.traction The parallels are mine 4n the rhetorical emphasis 7ighlanders gi"e to their o>n actions, e.traction and circulation become gendered; boys ha"e to be detached, girls ha"e to be e.changed :et each act also depends on the other, and no"ices are made into obJects of e.change, brides detached from their Ain /onetheless, the rhetoric has had an influence on anthropological interpretations #onseGuently, my account must e.tricate itself from the concreteness of t>o images as they ha"e page3))( Page ))6 presented themsel"es to the Western eye: the image of the boy child being remo"ed from an o"erbearing female sphere, in order Das the analyses >entE to sociali6e him into masculinity; and the image of females circulating among men liAe so many >ealth items, their femininity or fertility Dit >as assumedE the instrument of callous male reciprocity At best these interpretations captured half,truths Sambia tell us that there is an intimate relationship bet>een initiation and marriage e.changes 4n both cases, >hat is made partible is >hat another has gro>n This is the obJectified form of the process by >hich "alues are altered in the transformation of relationships; a part of oneself is seen to ha"e an e.ogenous source, from the "ie>point of one relationship to ha"e originated in another Thus from the perspecti"e of an all,male cult membership, boys in being separated from a Fdomestic domainF are separated from the conte.t of these menFs o>n cross,se. relations >ith their >i"es -rom the perspecti"e of the group of males >ho negotiate

marriages, the bride must be similarly separated 7ere the rele"ant domain of domestic relations is male 4t is her fatherFs influence that must be altered The difference is that the negotiating men substitute themsel"es Das husbandsE for another male Dthe brideFs fatherE rather than for a female Dthe initiateFs motherE The flo> of >omen can thus be liAened to the flo> of partible obJects bet>een men The menFs aim is to create ne> cross,se. relations for themsel"es D>ith the >ife, >ith the affinesE; they substitute for the >omanFs cross,se. relation >ith her father their o>n cross,se. relation >ith her The outcome of menFs transactions >ith one another is thus the propagation of ne> domestic ties ;oth initiation rituals of the Sambia Aind and marriages concei"ed as taAing place bet>een groups of negotiating men ser"e to establish the future conJugal and paternal acti"ities of the men They also turn the daughters and sisters of men into >i"es and mothers Parents of either se. are created Dappear as obJects of peopleFs dealings >ith one anotherE by being e.tracted from their o>n parents in anticipation of the offspring that >ill be e.tracted from them ;eyond the conJugal union, then, lies the outcome of itchildren >ho may be claimed by men, either as e.tensions of their all,male identity under patrilineal regimes or as a product of their cross,se. identity >ith their sister under matrilineal ones 4n either case, childbirth is a po>erful enactment of the e.tracti"e process itself, and >omenFs capacity to gi"e birth gi"es form to the anticipated outcome page3))6 Page ))% The idea that >e cannot sustain, ho>e"er, is that >omen are thereby symboli6ed as po>erless They may indeed lacA po>er to e.ert influence o"er the indi"idual men >ho arrange things for them ;ut they are not imagined as passi"e and po>erless in themsel"es @n the contrary, there is a >idespread illusion, on the part of both Melanesian >omen and men, that >omen are able to gro> children >ithin their bodies Again, >e ha"e to resist Western images of maternal nurture -or other ethnographic cases than the Sambia, dogma seems to ha"e it that a >oman does not feed the fetus >ithin her There, it >ill be recalled, the mother only FfeedsF the child after its birth, >ith her semen,deri"ed milA Within her body it is fed by the father What is significant is the body itselfthat the fetus is contained >ithin her This is the source of the connection bet>een mother and child, a relationship of unmediated e.change She has a direct effect on its gro>th, and in a number of societies this effecti"eness leads to >omenFs further illusion that mothers replicate themsel"es Where the illusion is shared by men, then the father or motherFs brother must e.tract >hat is o>ed him 4n doing so, the men deal >ith >hat for them Das 7erdt aptly notedE is the mediating effect of their affineFs body in order to cause the child to be born The difference bet>een the regimes to >hich 4 ha"e alluded is that in the one case the father must act on the mediating effect of the motherFs body; in the second the motherFs brother must act on the body of the motherFs husband @nly in so far as they can bypass these bodies are menFs actions seen to taAe direct effect The contrast bet>een the t>o types of production mentioned in the last chapter Drelease, gro>thE presents the outcome of e.changes from t>o "antage points This is true of both FmatrilinealF and FpatrilinealF regimes 4n the latter, these are the "antage points of fathers and of mothers -athers are gi"en e"idence of their o>n action in the form of the born child ;ut it only substitutes for their actions as the outcome of them, manifesting their agency in a different form Moreo"er, they must acti"ate a cross,se. relation, since the child is only e.tracted in being separated from its former Dsame,se.E encompassment by its mother Mothers by contrast are gi"en e"idence of their o>n replication in the s>elling of their bodies; the cause may be a former cross,se. relation, but for them the outcome is recogni6able as same,se. increment ;oth substitution and replication manifest, reify, turn into things, the effects of unmediated e.change Thus as things are personspeople and clansgro>n and propagated page3))% Page ))&

-ig ) TechniGues of @bJectification 44 Substituting -orms: +.traction 4 retain the ambiguity of the term Fmarriage e.changeF to refer both to a reciprocity in marriages, >hen one partnership replaces another Das in sister,e.changeE, and to transactions >hich accompany marriages, such as bride>ealth Much has been made of the organi6ational conseGuence of their difference My o>n interest is in the fact that in either case spouses are defined as e.tractable from their natal Ain by "irtue of being o>ed to another 4 briefly comment on the marriage e.changes of the 7ighlands before considering a seemingly different situation in the matrilineal Massim The ambiguity of the lineal designations is also retained, as a mnemonic for the differences by >hich >e habitually Ano> these systems, though it >ill be clear that 4 do not endorse this classificatory schema for my present purposes any more than 4 do the difference bet>een Ain,prescribed and other forms of marriage That is, >e cannot taAe these social forms as the basis of the "ery real contrasts to be made bet>een Melanesian societies, though they certainly manifest contrast Creating #ives and sisters1 Those 7ighlands e.changes that taAe such a strongly mediated formmen circulating obJects of "alue to create relations among themsel"esha"e another side to them The marriage FrulesF that so compel men to taAe action in relation to >omen simultaneously gi"e their e.changes an unmediated form Their relations ha"e a direct, substituti"e effect upon one another Women are already >i"es by "irtue of being sisters, and all that menFs acti"ities accomplish page3))& Page ))$ is the moment at >hich their transformation from one state to another becomes "isible 7ighlanders maAe o"ert the analogy bet>een the circulation of >ealth items and the circulation of >omen in marriage 4t is they >ho liAen marriage transactions to gift e.change, >ho eGuate >omen >ith >ealth * Sometimes the Fe.changeF is counted post hoc: only after the e"ent do people point out ho> a >oman >ho >ent to that clan >as e.changed for a >oman coming to this one ;ut >omen are also seen to mo"e against >ealth, as >hen bride>ealth is gi"en; or >omen may mo"e against other >omen, as in sister,e.change 4n any case, both men and >omen construe the transaction in terms of reciprocity WomenFs eGuation >ith >ealth, it can be added, is not restricted to bride>ealth but applies to the idea of "aluables in general What >omen reify are partible components of male identity These partible components are not, of course, to be imagined simply as feminine po>ers DFfertilityFE that men ha"e appropriated for themsel"es, but as the con"erse form of their o>n masculinity >ith its o>n maternal origins 9iAe Muyu>, 7agen men say L>omen are our tradestores,L and >hat they mean is that sisters and daughters bring in bride>ealth, in the form of pigs, shells, and money to their clan This transformation is accomplished at the start of a >orAing life rather than, as in Muyu>, at its end 7agen bride>ealth is thus compensation for the detachment of a clan person rather than an anticipation of >orA to be lost Dthough this is an idiomatic elementE The person of the sister or daughter is returned to her clan, then, in the form of >ealth, but not as its o>n reco"erable substance @n the contrary, the sister, already separated from her male Ain by the e.ogamic rule, anticipates that >ealth as an e.ogenous addition 4n relation to all,male clans, then, female agnates are detachable entities, to be FaddedF to other clans This maAes them eGui"alent to >ealth disposable in social relations in so far as they stand for the relationship bet>een units, partially attached to each

As an aspect of 7agen menFs social identities, >omen are personified as FfemaleF thereby, circulating as detachable parts of clans or persons thereby rendered FmaleF ;ut they do so by "irtue of the Ainship transformation that turns them from sisters into >i"es ) A >oman must be separated from her agnates through her relationship to a particular other DspouseE, to >hom her Ain thus o>e the possibility of separation itself @nly he can do it for them -rom the point of "ie> of the donors D>ife,gi"ersE, the sister is no> a detached part, but she comes to the page3))$ Page )0' recipients D>ife,taAersE as an entire representati"e of her natal Ain This is a s>itch from metonymic to metaphoric gift Dsee chap &E 4t is constituted in the different perspecti"es that the male participants ha"e of their interaction 0 7ence the necessity that they are in e.change, for #hat they exchange #ith each other are their vie#points And the relati"ity of their perspecti"es comes from the demonstration of the menFs respecti"e capacities: only one of the Ainds of males Dspouse, not agnate; that is, the sisterFs husband, not her father or brotherE can cause the >oman to gi"e birth Again, only he does it for them, that is, con"ert her person into DhisE children and DtheirE >ealth 7e is necessary to effect the substitution of one Aind of relationship that they enJoy >ith her into another ;ut in so far as those relations are already predicated in the e.ogamic rule, the possibility of substitution is already embodied in the persons of >omen That outcome is anticipated 4n a number of Melanesian societies, such an outcome is construed in the prescripti"e Ainship claims that persons ha"e on marriageable others The bride is represented as already o>ed to the marrying unit, >ho assert their present claims against their former o>n cross,se. relations >ith the same people #ousin marriage and moiety organi6ation as found in certain 9o>lands systems Dthe SepiA pro"ides e.amplesE present perfect cases of the anticipated outcome +ach unit produces for the other because it has been so produced The gift Dthe brideE already e.ists and must be e.tracted, and e.traction thus acti"ates the "ery relation >hich maAes the obJect 4n the 7ighlands, ho>e"er, it is much more freGuent to find sister,e.change accompanied by a prohibition on marrying relati"es, as in Sambia, or a prohibition on any replicated marriage in Ainship terms, as in 7agen The pre"ailing ethos that marriage is nonetheless an e.change, as it has to be to effect partition, leads to the metaphori6ation of marriage bet>een >ife,gi"ing and >ife,taAing units as though marriages >ere substituting for one another D= Weiner *$%$, and see, for e.ample, @F7anlon and -ranAland, in pressE F8ealF or FmetaphoricalF sister e.change means that a debt is established, either in the past or in the case of simultaneous double unions in the present This latter is also the structure of bride>ealth, though the debt is construed in the moment of negotiation Transfers of bride,>ealth establish the claim at the same time as the claim is met A claim is, of course, an anticipation of separable interests or "ie>points Separations are acti"ated at the moment of e.traction, since an obJect can only be e.truded through social differentiation That is, the page3)0' Page )0* obJect of one relationship becomes the obJect of another: sister becomes >ife, a >omanFs fatherFs child becomes her husbandFs child And if >omen subseGuently reify aspects of male identity, men also reify aspects of female identity 4n their cross,se. relations >ith different categories of males, >omenFs female capacities are released in different >ays As far as their ability to gro> children is concerned, this release is anticipated, but not reali6ed, in the e.ogamic rule or in prescriptions about the Ainship status of the conJugal partners +"idence that the appropriate transformation has been reali6ed reGuires the inter"ention of an agent >ho, in becoming a source of action, acts to a direct and in this sense unmediated effect To gi"e e"idence of their o>n capacities, the FthingsF they can yield, >omen need men to e.ert themsel"es on their behalf Creating fathers and sister/s hus)ands1 At se"eral points in her >ritings on the Trobriands, A Weiner D*$%6:))$; *$%&:*%&; *$&':%(E notes ho> inapposite it >ould be to interpret marriage e.changes as simply defining >omen as obJects of menFs transactions This criticism lies >ithin her larger concern >ith the >ay >omenFs Fpo>erF has been o"erlooAed in the ethnographic record She de"elops a general approach to reproduction, the manner in >hich in her terminology persons FreplaceF one another, stressing the formation of all Ainds of relationships through the flo>, combination, and separation of substances D*$&'; *$&)E +.changes sustain these flo>s and include transactions initiated by >omen Guite as much as men They are

part of a general process of social regeneration, in >hich L>omen and men, e.emplified in the obJects they e.change, percei"e the "alue of each other through the interface of the "alue of human beings and the "alue of regenesisL D*$%6:)0*E WomenFs reproducti"e po>er cannot be regarded simply as a biological resource at menFs disposal 4t is not the case that L>omen >ere one obJect among the many obJects that mo"ed bet>een menL D*$&):6'E @ne significant conte.t for her perspecti"e D*$&'E is pro"ided by the small gifts DmapulaE that Trobriand husbands gi"e their >i"es, and fathers their children, particularly sons Since there appeared no material return, Malino>sAi called these free gifts, e"en though the local term DFrepaymentF, FeGui"alentFE aligns them >ith other reciprocal e.changes Weiner taAes, in fact, Malino>sAiFs o>n position, that e.changes cannot be considered in isolation Such gifts, from a man to his >ife or his sons, initiates a much larger flo> bet>een his dala Dma, page3)0* Page )0) trilineal Ain groupE 1 and theirs Gifts to male children include resources such as land use or coconut palms These are redeemed by his dala at his death: >hen the manFs Ain group taAes them bacA it replaces them >ith male >ealth Da. blades, pots, shell ornamentsE The childrenFs relationship >ith their father o"er his lifetime is thus finally transformed into male >ealth at death The return is a substitute for the >orA >hich the sons do for the father, in much the same >ay as the >ifeFs >orA is also Joined >ith his -or this, female >ealth comes from the deceasedFs female relati"es A parallel >ith the combination of husbandsF and >i"esF >orA on Muyu> suggests itself 7o>e"er, the ethnographers note differences bet>een the t>o islands The significant Trobriand category of female >ealth DsAirts and banana leaf bundlesE is absent from Muyu>; people there also maAe minor business of the har"est payments from a brother to his sister2sisterFs husband >hich formed such a role in Malino>sAiFs e.plication of Trobriand Ainship ;ut there is more to the "ariations than the classification of >ealth items ( 5istincti"e to the Trobriands appears the possibility that a man can transform his F>orAF Dp *$(E into >ealth, albeit male >ealth, for his Ain group @n Muyu>, a manFs Ain are only compensated >ith produce for producetransformati"e po>er lies >ith the sister, >hose >orA is compensated >ith "aluables DMenFs >orA in FmanufacturingF is en"isaged by Muyu> as being transferable directly into shells for their o>n, not subclan, use E Weiner D*$&0:*(&*6'E stresses the "alue Trobrianders gi"e to stone a. blades in internal e.changes These items of male >ealth circulate to secure the replacement of indi"iduals or propertythey appear in, though are by no means confined to, mortuary distributions as final substitutions for the original marriage transactions, including mapula gifts 9iAe .ula "aluables, a.es >alA around and ha"e genealogies consisting of the names of their o>ners DWeiner *$%6:*&0E They are conceptuali6ed as the property of indi"idual men and are not dala property ;ut they can come to the men of a dala in completion of Ain obligations, and although the a.es are obtained through a "ariety of transactions and ser"ices, receipt can terminate relations that male dala members ha"e >ith their paternal2affinal Ain Prime e.amples of male >ealth, the return of such same,se. "aluables cancels the reproducti"e potential of a cross,se. connection bet>een a son and his affines The cultural >eight that Trobriand men put on the male "aluable Dthe a.E must be appreciated in relation to its counterpart, female >ealth 6 4n one sense FmaleF and FfemaleF >ealth circulate in parallel in page3)0) Page )00 internal e.changes ;ut there is also an asymmetry bet>een them WomenFs >ealth bears a more emphatic connotation of inter,dala connection D*$&':%&E -emale >ealth is gi"en, for instance, in reciprocity for the har"est gifts of yams >hich a brother sends his sister2sisterFs husband Weiner D*$&0:*(%E argues that a >oman is in debt to those >ho so pro"ide her >ith yams, and she has a lien on her husband to pro"ide her >ith female >ealth to meet it -or one of the husbandFs return acts lies in his efforts to help the sister, his >ife, find such >ealth, including from among his o>n female relati"es; it is part of his producti"e >orA on her behalf, >hich also includes maAing gardens and feeding the >oman and her children, an acti"ity closely monitored by the >ifeFs brother Weiner D*$%&:*%$*&'E suggests the har"est gifts are thus a register of FFthe producti"e >orA effortL of a husband to>ards his >ife

4n fact, these efforts also separate the Joint >orA of the spouses by gender The >ife is assisted by her female affines to maAe a return of female >ealth to her FbrotherF Mean>hile the yams also bring the husband personal prestige, and in addition he reciprocates >ith male >ealth that includes stone a.es The significant point that Weiner stresses, ho>e"er, is the manner in >hich the efforts of particular persons are transformed into dala obJects The husbandFs >orA, for instance, is returned initially by his >ifeFs brother in the form in >hich it is gi"en Dyamsproduce for produceE in the same >ay as his caring for her children is reciprocated by the >ifeFs caring for the yams he gro>s for his sister D;rindley *$&1:6%E ;ut >hen >e looA at the >orA of the siblings, it seems that female >ealth is tied to mortuary conte.ts, for this is >hen inter,dala relations are mobili6ed Thus a >omanFs return to her FbrotherF D>hich is recei"ed by the brotherFs >ifeE is made on the occasion of a death in his dala D>hich is also her o>nE DWeiner *$%6:*$%*$&; *$&0:*(%E These transactions simultaneously separate dala members by gender into t>o Ainds The brother gi"es the products of his >orA DyamsE for the use of his sisterFs husband, >hile the sister pro"ides her brotherFs >ife >ith the sAirts and fibers of female >ealth -rom the point of "ie> of the siblingsF dala, >ealth returns to them by a double route: female >ealth "ia the sisterFs marriage to her husband and male >ealth "ia the brotherFs yam e.change >ith the sisterFs husband The >orA of each sibling is thus obJectified in these items An asymmetry bet>een female and male >ealth has already been noted, the latter as Weiner stresses not carrying the regenerati"e o"ertones of the former ;ut the t>o Ainds of >ealth page3)00 Page )01 could also be regarded as analogues of one another, Just as there are t>o DdifferentE Ainds of dala membersfemale and male 5espite the asymmetry bet>een them, then, Trobriand brother and sister Jointly generate >ealth for the dala That men as >ell as >omen do so may be linAed to the ideali6ed FranAingF of Trobriand Ain units, in so far as they come to be conceptuali6ed as accumulating resources D*$&':&*E Male and female siblings together recoup their double F>orAF in the form of the male and female >ealth generated by their relationship >ith the sisterFs husband 4ndeed, the husband emerges as the crucial single conduit by >hich the t>o Ainds of >ealth come to the pair of siblings The >ife holds an analogous though possibly less "isible position; she is an alternati"e single conduit, so to speaA, from the "ie>point of her husbandFs dala Any deathas an inter,dala conte.tgenerates both male >ealth, >hich initially taAes the form of compensation from the >ido>2>ido>erFs Ain to the deceasedFs Ain for ha"ing let him or her die D*$%6:%1E, and female >ealth gi"en by >omen to the Ain of a deceased spouse to terminate the relationship % 4n the long term, gifts of both forms of >ealth from the deceasedFs dala maAe a return to the spouse for ha"ing cared for the deceased >hile he2she >as ali"e, as is made to a father for his nurture of children Marriage is the pi"ot for these e.changes And >ithout the sisterFs marriage and her husbandFs e.ertions, >hich elicit both hers and her brotherFs >orA, there >ould be no such flo> of male and female >ealth ;rother and sister each gi"e and recei"e their o>n type of >ealth Dmale and female "aluablesE at the e.plicit point of termination of e.tra,dala connections 4 ha"e suggested that the parallel same,se. transfers thus separate the siblings, maAing them into t>o FAindsF of dala members, male and female Mortuary gifts, then, are perhaps a co"ert restoration of the cross,se. tie bet>een them, >hich substitutes for the cross,se. tie of the conJugal,affinal relationship The generati"e potential of this latter relationship is cancelled in the reacti"ation of the gender of the sibling pair ;ut brother and sister do not gi"e male and female >ealth to one another Their relationship is unmediated -or it is transactions bet>een husband and >ife, as bet>een father and children, >hich taAe the form of FgiftF gi"ing The cross,se. relationship bet>een spouses and affines is the o"ert reason for e.change, >here the substances of food and >orA are transformed into >ealth: from the receipt of yams from her brother, Weiner D*$%6:*$%E >rites, a man is obligated directly to his >ife Their e.changes are material ;ut >hile page3)01 Page )0( these substances thus comprise something of a closed circuit D>orA2food2>ealthE, the production of children is >ithout substance 4t is the absence of direct e.change in the co"ert cross,se. relationship bet>een brother and sister that maAes their Joint child & Trobriand assertions that there is no physiological connection bet>een father and child has long e.cited Western obser"ers The lacA of such connection bet>een mother and child also calls for comment

There is an apparent ambiguity in Trobriand ideas about conception as to the relationship bet>een the entry of the child into the >omanFs body, thought of as a spirit brought by a matrilineal ancestor, and the contribution that a >omanFs internal substance apparently maAes to the fetus Malino>sAiFs original account emphasi6ed that L>ithout doubt or reser"e, the child is of the same substance as its mother, N>hereasO bet>een the father and the child there is no bond of physical unionL D*$)$:0E The mother contributes e"erything, and abo"e all her internal Lblood helps to build the body of the childit nourishes itL D*$)$:*1$E 4ndeed, in conception theories >here the motherFs blood is bound >ith substances from the father Das are found in the Western 7ighlandsE, the child is said to come from the mingling of both ;ut here there is nothing >ith >hich the motherFs blood can bind 4n fact there seems to be no indication that the blood is regarded as the basis for a connection of substance bet>een mother and child We should Guery >hether indeed the mother feeds the fetus >ith it Weiner D*$%6:*)0E is clear on the point that it is the figure of the father >ho is regarded as FfeedingF a >omanFs children ;lood is simply the counterpart already in the mother of the spirit children >ho >ill be brought her by matrilineal ancestral beings; it is not to be thought of as food at all Malino>sAiFs error, if >e can call it that, comes from mistaAing form for substance Trobrianders insist that the child is implanted as spirit and by spirit into the body of the mother The partible form that blood taAes is an anticipation of the "ery form the DpartibleE child >ill taAe, filling up the motherFs body as a container is filled ;ut ultimately the child must also be separated from the maternal container That scenario is already anticipated in the affinal e.changes 9et me maAe the connections e.plicit ;rother and sister co"ertly transact together as Joint producers of dala >ealth and of dala children, but they cannot o"ertly e.change >ith each other 8ather the siblings produce FdifferentF items Dyams, childrenE, analogically eGui"alent but >hich each must maAe the other page3)0( Page )06 yield 4n childbirth, the brother has an urgent interest in his sisterFs production ;ut he cannot interact directly >ith her; instead, he forces an e.change on the >omanFs husband Although the >oman remains titular Fo>nerF of the brotherFs yams, the har"est gifts go to him -or the husband is the man >ho Fopens the >ayF, through se.ual intercourse, for the childFs entry into her body at conception 7e creates the maternal body as container, an anticipated separation of container and contained on behalf of the >omanFs brother 4ndeed, it is the creation of the >omanFs body as container rather than the e.trusion of the fetus >hich seems the husbandFs significant act; he separates child from mother >hile it is still >ithin, by the internal molding of its shape The brotherFs har"est gifts to the husband, one may say, coerce him into so acting and hence the sister into producing an entity out of but distinct from herself And in this it seems to be the husbandFs acti"ity rather than his emissions that taAe effect That acti"ity is in turn a product of his relations >ith his affines +ither spouse may be the single conduit through >hich flo>s male and female dala >ealth The brotherFs >ife is as essential to the obJectification of the sister,brother tie as the sisterFs husband is to the brothersister tie ;ut >hat distinguishes the t>o relationships is the crucial part >hich producti"e >orA plays in the latter by contrast >ith the former This introduces an asymmetry, and puts a particular emphasis on the affinal position of sisterFs husband2father -or the husband >hose single figure is the focus, and thus the obJect, of the brotherFs and sisterFs o"ert >orAhe elicits it from both of themis also the catalyst for Joining their co"ert >orA in the single figure of a child An obJect of the brother,sister relationship is the brotherFs child >hom the sister gro>s >ithin her The husband is made into a catalyst by the brother, >ho supplies him >ith yams, analogues of the child in that they are concei"ed of as yams that the brother gro>s for his sister $ @ne might suggest that it is because the husband FconsumesF the yams that he in turn gi"es birth to the child, >hich >ould recall the Gimi image of the >omen >ho are forced to eat the male meat that forces them to e.trude male spirit :et the Trobriand husband >ho deploys the yams for his o>n purposes does not gi"e birth out of his body As is characteristic of his e.changes >ith his affines, he does so through the mediation of F>orAF, the effort of molding the fetus The fatherFs acti"ity gi"es the child his bodily form, as an e.traneous and partible entity Putting his face on the child is the "isible act by >hich the Trobriand page3)06 Page )0%

father effects its separation from its mother 7is efforts are reduplicated through nurture Paternal feeding establishes a connection bet>een the child and its father, but maAing the fatherFs contribution "ery much an e.ternal FpartF of the childFs constitution 7e simply gi"es it e.ternal shape As a contained entity >ithin the mother, then, herself composed of dala blood, the fetus is fed by the father; once it is born, it is its o>n e.ternal and containing form that he creates, its inner form being dala blood Mother and child are thus internal and e.ternal homologues of one another Dcompare Weiner *$%&:*&)E 4t is by e.ternali6ing the child #hile still in the mother, reifying it >ith his features, that the husband anticipates its separation Moreo"er, in so far as the husbandFs >orA is regarded as a gift to be repaid, it is Aept separate, e.ogenous That the neonate continues to be fed from an e.ogenous source DfatherFs >orAE indi"iduates it from its dala co,members ;et>een brother and sister lies a giftless transaction that they cannot by themsel"es e.ternali6e -or the one impinges on the other to the e.tent that they engage in e.changes >ith their respecti"e spouses on behalf of >hat unites them, their dala identity 4t is dala identity that is gi"en form in the person of the child, since the fatherFs acts of feeding are subseGuently turned into >ealth obJects that are not the child: as >e ha"e seen, affinal nurture can be reclaimed by the >ifeFs dala >ho pay out >ealth in substitution for it ;ut from the point of "ie> of that dala, the >omanFs brother has already e.tracted his child from the relationship bet>een the spouses 7e has done this through the regular yam prestations, >hich match continuous >orA >ith continuous >orA That is, he substitutes for the Joint >orA of the spouses on the husbandFs gardens his singular >orA in his o>n garden, >hich is seen to be to the Joint benefit of himself and his sister And the sisterFs body duplicates the s>elling of her brotherFs pregnant yam plots Trobriand mother and child are not connected by ties of substance The >omanFs body, liAe the dala, is the site for cooperation bet>een brother and sister, but only through the e.ertions of the sisterFs husband can children, and indeed yams, be reified in the proper form The blood >ithin the >oman indicates the silent, giftless relationship bet>een the sibling pair This identity bet>een brother and sister is unmediated, for each is the otherFs body, and by contrast >ith relations bet>een spouses, there is no mediating e.change bet>een them What mediates their relationship is the body of the person >ho >ill obJectify itreify its productsthe spouse -rom the Western point of "ie>, there is a double parado. here A page3)0% Page )0& Trobriand man gi"es birth to his >ifeFs child; a Trobriand >oman does not feed the fetus >ithin her The childFs inner identity replicates that of the >ifeFs brother and his dala, conceptuali6ed as blood and spiritthe stuff that dala members share ;ut the mother does not Fgi"eF this blood to the fetus as though it >ere food, any more than the brother impregnates his sister or sister and brother e.change gifts bet>een themsel"es And only most indirectly does the motherFs brother feed it; the feeding is mediated by the sisterFs husbandFs "ital act as nurturer 4t cannot be the case, then, that the fetus is an e.tension of the motherFs bodily tissue and that the mother FmaAesF it in this sense :et the fetus is regarded as gro>ing >ith her, >ith the motherFs body seen as essential for gro>th This further apparent parado. is a conseGuence of our o>n nutriti"e metaphors The Trobriand material suggests >e should distinguish feeding from gro>ing The concept of maternal nurture is so linAed to the concrete Western image of a >oman imparting first her o>n substance DmilAE and then the substance she has prepared DfoodE to her offspring, that 4 suspect gro>ing and feeding are often treated synonymously 4n the figure of the nurturing Trobriand father, ho>e"er, food is apparently treated liAe a mediating >ealth item and is contrasted >ith the Fgro>ingF acti"ated in unmediated e.change +lse>here, of course, food may >orA to unmediated effect When Gimi >omen eat meat, the meat is a direct substitution for the male body that the >omen >ill egest; >hen Sambia boys ingest semen, the semen is a direct replication of their inner substance and is held to gro> them 4ndeed, food should be treated to the same range of obJectifying operations as indicated for >ealth items and persons: 4 do not attempt it in full here ;ut 4 signal that >e cannot Ano> from inspection alone if feeding and gro>ing relationships are analogous or being contrasted >ith one another *' A Trobriand >oman is regarded as feeding her child >ith milA in the specific conte.t of the relationship >ith her husband, >ith >hom her >orA is combined 4t is not only her brotherFs yams that feed her A >ife is also fed by her husband, and her child nourished by him; this FfeedingF >orA by the husband is Joined >ith the feeding >orA of the >ife Dthrough her milAE ** And since the yams she eats come from both her husband and her brother, the >omanFs post,partum feeding continues to form a child both the same as and different from herself After birth, the child is thus fed by t>o Ainds of males As far as prenatal de"elopment is concerned, the Trobriand fetus

page3)0& Page )0$ can, as it >ere, only gro> >ithin the mother She does for the fetus, her brotherFs child, >hat he >ith his yams does for her +ach gro>s his or her product for the other This Joint >orA is co"ert because it must taAe place >ithin a container What the brother gro>s in the ground, the sister gro>s >ithin her body Since yams and children are Fthe sameF, the brotherFs yams cannot be conceptuali6ed as directly feeding the sisterFs child, for they are analogues of the child 4t is in >hat he replicates that the brother bypasses the mediating body of the father; brother and sister gro> for themsel"es, as a single dala body, in male and female form producing liAe bodies Dyams and childrenE The motherFs body is an aesthetic construction: >hat matters is its form 4t holds >hat is >ithin, and this is its secret Gro>th does indeed occur offstage, as is emphasi6ed in Paiela 4t is a conseGuence of a relationship bet>een mother and child but one that need not be mediated by feeding or any other transmission of FsubstanceF The relationship consists of form itself: a contained entity is en"eloped by a container The image of the maternal body as a container to be filled >ith spiritual essence is also fashioned during the course of Sambia initiation rites for boys, though here there is a doubling of the paternal contribution -athers pro"ide both spiritual essence and substance -ar from paternal substance being irrele"ant, the bodies of Sambia >omen are the mediating receptacles for male semen that both forms and gro>s the fetus *) 4t is the sisterFs husband >ho, liAe his Trobriand counterpart, is the significant agent ;ut >hereas the Trobriand sisterFs husband is coerced by his >ifeFs brother to open the sisterFs body, in the Sambia case the affine inseminates a sibling pair Dhis >ife and >ifeFs brotherE in order to gro> both of them and thus e"ince a capacity he cannot display in relation to his o>n sister 4 maAe the comparison in order to recall that the outcome of these operations is the multiple genders of the Sambia childliAe the flutes, at once male, androgynous, and female We can say the same of the Trobriand child The cross,se. relationship bet>een Trobriand brother and sister results in a single outcome Dthe sisterFs childE ;ut the capacity of that sibling relation can be reali6ed only through the e.ogenous efforts of the husband >ho substitutes for the relationship a singular entity in proper form, that is, the correctly shaped neonate A further cross,se. tie is thus made "isible Dbet>een husband and >ifeE that substitutes for the one,dala relationship bet>een the siblings, and in this interaction page3)0$ Page )1' the husband has unmediated effect on the fetus 7e cannot ha"e this effect on the >ife 4t is to the fetus that he gi"es his o>n male shape; and he can only gi"e his shape to it -irst, then, 4 refer to the fatherFs e.tracti"e acti"ity as male A manFs acts ha"e direct effect, and the form they taAe is the act itself The Trobriand father e.tracts something that is e.tractable because it taAes his o>n form, as is eGually true of Gimi or Sambia fathers >ho are regarded as filling up the empty bodies of >omen >ith the FmaleF child the >oman >ill produce #hildbirth reifies menFs actions, in so far as male acts produce male acts Second, the "isibility of the produced thing depends on a cross,se. conte.t: the FmaleF child is e.truded from a FfemaleF body Acts are thereby reproduced in another form: the birth is the end product of other actions, the completed or finished FthingF The state of the neonateFs DandrogynousE completion signifies that the acti"ation reGuired this cross,se. interaction >ith the mother So the neonate is also the multiple product of that interaction The Trobriand child puts the motherFs Ain in the fatherFs debt; in many 7ighlands societies, the father is in debt to the motherFs Ain ;ut in either case the child >ithin is separated from the maternal body because it is concei"ed as a product of e.ternal cross,se. relations Third, until that moment, ho>e"er, the child may also be concei"ed to enJoy an e.clusi"e single se. DFfemaleFE relationship >ith the mother 4n that connection, the motherFs body encompasses it as a replication of its o>n form, and in that condition the fetus is also gro>n by her 8eplicating -orms: +ncompassment 4t has been impossible to separate an analysis of ho> the obJects of relationships appear as things in e.tracted or e.truded form from concerns >ith gro>th This is not surprising, since the process by >hich one relationship substitutes for another elicits a conception of the first relationship as producing something >hich, in being o>ed, ought to be relocated in a second Substitution may, as >e ha"e seen, appear as one cross,se. relation being displaced by another Just as the Trobriand brother supplants the >orA that Joins

husband and >ife by his >orA for his sister: yams for children An inter"ening mechanism lies in the possibility that a pre"ious cross,se. relation can al>ays be regarded as a same,se. one A same,se. relation is one of isomorphism bet>een a personFs internal parts or a shared isomorphism >ith liAe others 4n itself it may be percei"ed as already a transformation of sorts page3)1' Page )1* 4 formulate here in re"erse the suggestion made in the conte.t of ceremonial e.change, that an e.pectant recipient has to transform a same,se. relation Dbet>een a donor and the donorFs >ealthE into a cross,se. one Dthe otherFs >ealth becomes partibly >hat is o>ed himE in order to e.tract anything 4ndeed, if one thinAs about it, the re"erse must hold: a cross,se. relation can only >orA to substituti"e effect if differentiable from the pre"ious relationship 4f the cross,se. relation taAes the reified form of difference, then the pre"ious relation must be construable as a same,se. one Thus from the point of "ie> of his relationship >ith his >ife, a Trobriand man may regard the >ife and her brother as FoneF DThey are co,members of one dala E 4f personification means that relations bet>een relations are predicated on separation, reification reGuires that distinct forms can also be apprehended as transformations of one another The aesthetic necessity is that e"ery relation contains >ithin it or anticipates Das its FcapacityFE its o>n outcome Da FthingFE That outcome is the pre"ious relationship in a transformed state ;ut ho> is a transformation from a unitary same,se. condition into a multiple cross,se. condition rendered concei"ableM Without a distinction bet>een same,se. and cross,se. relations the one cannot appear to displace the other; at the same time, the one must also appear to come out of and be anticipated by the other Thus a cross,se. relation can be regarded as bringing together t>o same,se. relations, as the separate internal constitutions of DsayE husband and >ife are Joined in conJugal union #on"ersely, and this perhaps is the more difficult construction to apprehend, a same,se. relation can anticipate a cross,se. one 4ts internal completeness is percei"ed as incomplete in relation to its prospecti"e oppositean all,female relation is elicited in the presence of an all,male relation ;ut the prospect of elicitation is already contained in its o>n construction The e"idence lies in the >ay in >hich peopleFs perceptions of a same,se. relationship can be altered, as the Gimi boys >ere confronted >ith the masculine features of their uni"erse suddenly appearing as feminine ones: one same,se. relation is re"ealed as the analogue of its opposite That is, an all,male relationship can be simultaneously reconceptuali6ed as an all,female one The s>itch in perception depends on peopleFs differently placed "ie>points The system >orAs because one person exists )y anticipating the vie#point of another Thus the 5aribi brothers >ho detach a female agnate, part of their male person, Ano> that the bride >ill appear page3)1* Page )1) as a female entity to the >ife,taAers >ho regard them Dthe brothers, male in their o>n "ie>E as female 7er transfer temporally acti"ates the anticipation Anticipation is implied in the contemporaneous form of analogy The relation of analogy does not mean that an all,male relation >ill Fturn intoF an all,female one 8ather, an all,male relation appears as a coe"al F"ersionF of its all,female counterpart The other form is present at the same time *0 -rom the point of "ie> of the Trobriand husband, the >ifeFs child is an e.tension of his o>n >orA in his relationship to her, its partible form being established by the fact that the FmaleF child can be separated from the FfemaleF body 7e enJoys an all,male relationship >ith it, as the product of his nurture -rom the motherFs brotherFs point of "ie>, the child is e.tractable in so far as the FfemaleF body is created to e.trude a FmaleF form, but >hat the mother e.trudes is the basis of the tie bet>een brother and sister, namely dala identity, and it is the replication of her female form that is important, that the child is composed of dala blood The same,se. tie bet>een mother and child thus duplicates in turn his o>n Fsame,se.F tie D"ia their one motherE >ith his sister An all,male entity Dthe child as a product of the affinal fatherFs effortsE can be eGually conceptuali6ed as all,female Dthe child as product of the dala siblingsF effortsE The t>o perceptions de"elop "is,P,"is one another, in the cross,se. conte.t of the affinal relation We might construe them in terms of competing claims but only to obser"e that the otherFs point of "ie> is al>ays part of the construction: the father Ano>s >hat construction the mother and the motherFs brother put on the childFs identity; the one "ie>point elicits the other

4f this is so, then the one "ie>point is also contained >ithin the other *1 Such is the condition 4 call encompassment +ncompassment may be aesthetically apprehended as a male person containing >ithin and ha"ing attached to himself female elements in male form or as a female person containing >ithin or ha"ing attached to herself male elements in female form D+ither an entity >ithin or an entity attached can be encompassedindeed, as far as body parts are concerned, or the >ealth or >orA that people create, an appendage is the FsameF as a body organ E 4n that Trobriand brother and sister are t>o Ainds of dala persons, male and female, each se. encompasses the other The >omanFs s>elling female contour e"inces the producti"ity of the brotherFs male >orA #on"ersely, in the brotherFs garden a tall yam pole supporting a triangular base is erected in a corner of each page3)1) Page )10 plot that is the magical focus of its producti"ity Malino>sAi describes it as the first "ertical pole introduced into the garden, FFa finishing off, so to speaA, of the surface >orA of the garden Nthat isO no> encased in a glittering frame>orA of strength and loftinessL D*$0(:*0*, *)&, transposedE To see this pole as La symbolic proJection of the pregnant >ombL D;rindley *$&1:0%E does not seem at all fanciful ;ut it is a >omb in male shape +ither a male or a female same,se. relation, then, may be seen as a simultaneous "ersion of its analogue, and this possibility is contained in the image of encompassment A Sambia >oman nourishes her FmaleF child >ith male substance contained in female form DmilAE, >hile a man nourishes his FfemaleF >ifeFs brother >ith female substances contained in male form DsemenE Significant to the analogic relation is its simultaneity The one form is the other at the same time 4n this construction, male Fis the sameF as female :et each is a totali6ing imageand the Sambia boy, liAe his Gimi counterpart, is forced into s>itching perceptions in the >ay in >hich he thinAs about bodily substances, >hile Ano>ing both the forms they taAe A dual identity thus seems to the percei"ers to inhere in the obJect of perception This lays the basis, 4 >ould argue, for temporal seGuencing: to the actor, re"elation about one or other condition must be seGuential The actor may also percei"e a further seGuence The same,se. relation that is simultaneously its opposite se. counterpart can appear to turn into a relationship bet>een the t>o, as a cross,se. relation There is no parado. in considering the Trobriand motherFs brother as first a female figure and then a male figure This is ho> he may be construed in relation to his sister *( The aesthetic analogue bet>een the female Trobriand mother >ho is also her children and the >omanFs male brother >ho is also his yams is the conceptual basis for the giftless relationship bet>een them There is an outcome to their cross,se. tie: a thing e"entuates, the har"ested yam, the born child That outcome both supposes a temporal seGuence, a moment of re"elation, and is the relationship in another form 4t is the child >ho is born that is the outcome, not the hidden fetus or the yams in the ground They remain for e"er tropes for one another 4ndeed, the co"ert, cross,se. sibling tie is only producti"e >hen it is made "isible in the conte.t of another and o"ert cross,se. tie, namely the relation bet>een the >oman and her husband A same,se. relation Dmother and fetusE can turn into a cross,se. relation DmotherFs brother and sisterFs childE only through an acti"e inter"ention that registers their temporal distinction The once encased page3)10 Page )11 fetus is no> the e.posed neonate ;ut the embryo gre>, so to speaA, >ith its birth in mind The same,se. tie FanticipatesF its transformation into a finished thing ,mitations Although at se"eral points 4 ha"e referred to perception, it should be clear that mine is not a cogniti"e analysis but an attempt to gi"e a cultural description of Melanesian symbolism, of gardens that s>ell liAe bellies and of milA that is male My remarAs are not intended to be taAen beyond At the same time, they try to bypass the s>athe of anthropological e.planations that rest on some Aind of appropriati"e metaphor We may recall that the re"elation that much male cult acti"ity contains >ithin it female elements has often been interpreted as e"idence that men had appropriated or >ere controlling properties that belonged to >omen 4t >as taAen as a sign of their "ictory o"er the opposite se. 4 do not see that >e reGuire this mode of e.planation WomenFs bodies are not conceptuali6ed as ha"ing a FnaturalF form that men appropriate The composition of menFs and >omenFs forms each metaphori6es the other To maAe the point, 4 turn briefly to

the Guestion of menstruation and bleeding, for in the analyses of 7ighlands rituals this has been taAen as prime e"idence of appropriation: men bleed themsel"es to imitate >omenFs bleeding and thereby Din the obser"erFs "ie>E sho> that they ha"e appropriated >omenFs po>ers The further conclusion dra>n from this is that men co"ertly desire self,sufficiency, that they >ould reproduce >ithout >omen if they could This curious fantasy, noted in chapter (, ob"iously holds po>er for the Western obser"er to be so consistently read into the ethnographic record My description is intended to put the practices into a >ider conte.t The collecti"e acti"ity of ceremonial e.change Dchap &E sets up a homogeneity and replicability among the participants that creates the conditions for a flo> of items by >hich men measure themsel"es They dispose of >ealth >hich refers bacA to their male persons yet is simultaneously differentiated from them, and concei"able in female form The flo> of such items stimulates "elocity, a speeding up of circulation through liAe Dsame,se.E units, so that the total metaphoric claim is self,producti"e, of more >ealth, more prestige ;y contrast, in initiation ceremonies Sambia men, and some of their +astern 7ighlands neighbors, detach and circulate obJects Dno"ices, semenE >hich taAe a male form, though there is a sense in >hich they deri"e from a female source 7ere a male part is separated from the personFs other>ise androgynous page3)11 Page )1( constitution This obJectification of maleness in initiation acti"ity, then, does not heighten or increase an innate maleness >ithin persons but maAes detachability e"idence of a specific DmaleE capacity At the same time, a partible substance cannot flo> unless it is released We also sa> that the initiands are constituted as "essels through the release of blood from their bodies This may be percei"ed as a female part :et it is not >omen as such that the men are so imitating: it is another "ersion of themsel"es Sambia men bleed themsel"es throughout their life Just as they supplement their internal semen pool by drinAing the sap of pandanus and other FtreesF D7erdt *$&*:chap 1; *$&1b:*$(*$%; = Weiner *$&):$E The sap DFmilAFE is co"ertly seen as coming from a female Dthe treeFs FbreastsFE @ne >ould e.pect the blood they let to be co"ertly male, but this does not appear to be the case 4 suggested that a relation of potential analogy bet>een blood and semen is displaced by the Sambia analogy bet>een semen and milA, because the origin of a manFs sisterFs husband must be distinguished from that of his mother Thus the blood is regarded as female not male in origin @r rather one could say that men rid themsel"es of the FsameF substance in female form DbloodE that they ingest in male form DsemenE 4t is dangerous to re"erse the seGuencing Dcompare Gillison *$&':*('E, and this is the chief danger of ingesting >omenFs menstrual blood, >hich Sambia men regard as polluting Women are thought to ha"e >ithin them both the circulatory blood supplied by their motherFs >omb Lthat stimulates body functioning and gro>th, and the ability to >ithstand sicAness or inJuryL D7erdt *$&)b:*$6E, and that they share >ith men, and their o>n menstrual,>omb blood, a pool >e might say is similar to menFs pool of semen although Sambia do not emphasi6e the eGuation This second Aind of blood is lethal to men in historical,temporal terms Their motherFs >omb blood >as an appropriate container of their person but one that has already completed them -or a person to be re,haemati6ed, re,contained by more >omb blood, >ould put history in re"erse 8ather, historical seGuence is sustained, 4 >ould argue, by blood,letting What gre> them before birth cannot gro> them again but can be released in partible form This partible substance DbloodE remains something that they do not themsel"es transmit 4ts origin in their o>n particular mothers is its significant characteristic The masculinity of blood is made apparent in other +astern 7ighlands systems Where marriage e.changes do not entail the same possibilities of reduplicated substance, it is blood and semen that may be page3)1( Page )16 construed as analogies A >omanFs blood is thought of as paternal substance and e"idence of her paternal spirit De g , Gillison *$&':*6%E *6 4n these latter configurations, the motherFs brother emerges as a crucial figure, not unliAe the Trobriand father2sisterFs husband 7e is the e.ogenous male >ho maAes creati"e the difference bet>een male and female forms of the same substance 4n +astern 7ighlands societies such as Gimi, menstrual blood is a "ersion of semen because of its reference to paternity Thus, ritual at a girlFs first menses establishes that >hat flo>s from her body is paternal substance, belonging to the girlFs father or lineage, and is e.plicitly analogous to the noseblood DFsemenFE of her brother DGillison *$&':*1$E This blood must be Aept separate from male substance in its form as semen; indeed, the t>o are inimical 4n order to recei"e a male substance in producti"e form Dthe husbandFs semenE,

the >oman has to get rid of its paternal counterpart already >ithin her DfatherFs semen in partible form, her blood and thus his Fdead childFE D*$&':*6$E *% This creates her internal ca"ity She herself continues to bleed, in that her paternal affiliation can ne"er be completely eliminated N-Oemale menstruation is a substituti"e process in >hich the FdepositsF of one man Dthe father or, collecti"ely, his lineageE are destroyed and replaced by the FdepositsF of another man Dthe husband or his lineageE DGillison *$&':*6&E 4n this conte.t, >omenFs >omb blood is denied a feeding role: semen alone forms the body of the fetus -ood implies an eGuation >ith the maternal body itself, and Gimi men periodically induce "omiting Dthrough cane,s>allo>ingE to get rid of maternal food, including breast milA, Lparts of their motherFs bodiesL D*$&':*('E Men also bleed their arms and noses to in"igorate the body What they get rid of is a part of themsel"es, but here themsel"es in female form Menstrual blood is not food but in >omen a female manifestation of paternal substance -or men, its possible paternal origin is mediated by this female identity ;ecause it can be "oided, the manFs FmaleF body can thus be separated from his FfemaleF part 4t is a part that >as formed during the creation of the manFs o>n body, and as generally appears to be the case throughout this region, the "oided FpaternalF substance is thus o"ertly described as FmaternalF blood @n the surface it >ould appear that the blood is simply that of the >omanFs paternity Dderi"ed from the fatherE 7o>e"er, 4 suggest that page3)16 Page )1% this also co"ers a further eGuation bet>een a man and his o>n paternal substance, insofar as he reenacts his o>n birth 9et me spell this out ;leeding among men offers e"idence that they can detach parts of themsel"es The detachment of a FfemaleF part DbloodE in"igorates the male body, enhancing the personal health of the performer: it does not result in a product that can then circulate bet>een men DMen circulate their blood, so to speaA, in the bodies of their sisters E /e"ertheless, it is the acti"ity of separationthe moment at >hich male and female elements are "isibly distinguished>hich effects this enhancement The manFs person momentarily enacts its internal male2female constitution, and the results are beneficial for himself -or at the same time he is acti"ating the already completed transactions that brought about his o>n DandrogynousE constitution Men thus energi6e themsel"es, one might say, in terms of the transaction by >hich they >ere born, and as an obJect e.truded from a container are reproduced as containers 4n this they decompose themselves And they do so, 4 suggest, by detaching from their bodies both maternal D"omitE and paternal DbloodE substance The energy that Gimi men deri"e can be traced through a de"olution of e"ents -irst, it is a male acti"ity to so effect detachment DGillison *$&':*1%E As in GahuAu,Gama and ;ena ;ena, Gimi >omen are regarded as receptacles for menFs semen To e.pand this proposition >e might say that >omen, themsel"es androgynously constituted, enclose an androgynous substance Dblood2semenE: its masculinity lies in its state of being enclosed to encloser, and potentially detachable thereby When he performs this operation on himself, the male FmotherF "oids a replica of himself that is at once maternal and paternal substance Second, the manFs body is the single site for its dual composition through motherFs body and fatherFs semen Men also disaggregate these t>o contributions, thus tapping the energy that caused the original pair to unite Deach parent being in a unitary, single se. stateE This is possible because, third, they reenact this historical e"ent by turning themsel"es into a similar unitary state 4n so far as they then claim this state through e"idence of its maleness, the t>o parental substances that they decompose can only be en"isaged as female Thus both motherFs food and fatherFs semen must be e.truded in female form Dcogni6ed as FmotherFsF "omit and bloodE 5ecomposition through blood,letting thus celebrates different procreati"e moments Sambia men do not reenact their historical containment by their mothers but sho> in themsel"es their motherFs blood in page3)1% Page )1& transformed, partible DmaleE form 4n contrast, Gimi men use bleeding to indicate their o>n partibility, for they >ere born only because their fatherFs semen DbloodE displaced their motherFs blood DsemenE >ithin her body As its analogue, blood cannot turn into semen; but blood2semen appropriately appears only in one or other form, >hich must be sustained as unmi.ed

4n certain Western 7ighlands societies, the distincti"eness bet>een blood and semen is taAen for granted, and it is their producti"e mingling or pairing that taAes place >ithin the >omanFs body Menstrual pollution simply indicates the difference bet>een blood creati"ely paired >ith semen and blood that has no creati"e outcome 4n contradistinction to the metaphoric DanalogicE eGuations that render semen as a type of milA, Western 7ighlanders >ho do not let blood may percei"e semen and milA to be irreducibly antithetical substances De g Meggitt *$6(: chap %E -or Paiela, the crucial contrast lies bet>een FboundF and FunboundF blood ;iersacA argues that the Paiela >ifeFs blood must be properly bound >ith semen in order for her to procreate This deliberate combination of distinct substances produces a mediating obJect Dthe childE, the >ifeFs Freturn giftF for the bride>ealth D*$&0:$6E ;iersacA suggests that it symboli6es the alliance of Ain groups mediated by the marriage; but more than this, Lit presages as >ell the consummation of a transaction that the husband himself has initiated 4t is he >ho has gi"en bride>ealth and placed his >ife under an obligation to reciprocateL D*$&0:$%E The substances are the basis for a transaction bet>een the ne> couple: blood and semen hold the possibility of the future transaction >ithin themsel"es Deach a same,se. substanceE rather than, as in the +astern 7ighlands cases, holding >ithin themsel"es the androgynous record of transactions completed 4 return to these regional contrasts in the final section of this chapter A remaining obser"ation concerns the 7ighlands, >hich one might concei"ably resurrect in terms of menFs appropriation of female po>ers #ogni6ed as female substance, neither milA nor blood is directly reified into obJects of mediated e.change; they circulate only through their analogies as semen or >ealth, as metonymically parts of men rather than parts of >omen 4s it only FmaleF substance, then, that supplies the reified form for the obJects of collecti"e relationsM 5oes FfemaleF substance not circulateM @ne riposte has already been gi"en: female substance is circulated already embodied, that is, in the persons of sisters and >i"es And a conseGuence of this embodiment is that the mediatory page3)1& Page )1$ obJects at >omenFs disposal comprise >hat they ha"e gro>n >ithin, the products of their o>n same,se. relations This holds true for the plants and pigs >omen gro>, a capacity that may be abstracted as the capacity for gro>th itself, as in the enterprises of 5aulo >omen 4n 5aulo, it e"en looAs as though >omen deliberately FappropriateF the products of cross,se. household relations in order to maAe them gro> properly in an e.clusi"e all,female en"ironment !ources of gro#th1 The +astern 7ighlands 5aulo >ere introduced in chapter 1 Warry underlines the different structure of >omenFs collecti"e #o. meri acti"ities from the ceremonial e.change net>orAs of men: Men Join together to gi"e a>ay massi"e amounts of food, money and beer in order to build group and indi"idual reputations <afaina N#o. meriO >omen gain public recognition by recei"ing and Ftightly holdingF their >ealth so that de"elopment and business >ill prosper Men F>asteF >ealth in search of political status; >omen gain status by guarding resources necessary for de"elopment D*$&(:0(, 0%E The collecti"e nature of >omenFs acti"ity has some precedence in >omenFs horticultural cooperation and former rituals in"ol"ing their participation as a body Warry emphasi6es the cooperati"e as opposed to the competiti"e tenor of >omenFs and menFs e.changes Dsee p &6E 4ndeed, the ne> dogma of the #o. meri mo"ement sustains a contrast bet>een menFs propagation by Fflo>F and their o>n by Fgro>thF ;ut, then, on Se.tonFs analysis the analogue of #o. meri is menFs initiation ritual not Ainship,based e.changes as such The >omen come together on the basis of a same,se. tie, but their indifference to e.tant social relationships bet>een the participants Dcreated largely through AinshipE means that the mediatory possibilities of their transactions are played do>n They obliterate the mediating element by >hich >ealth is seen to flo> bet>een differentiated Dcross,se.E social persons, and create instead a "ast replication of same,se. relations There is a singleness about >omenFs efforts, re"ealed in the ideas about retention And in their e.ternal relations this collecti"e >orA by >omen to gro> >ealth gi"es e"idence of itself in further FinternalF enlargement, as in the model of proliferating daughter groups *& While momentary differentiation bet>een #o. meri groups is encapsulated in an affinal idiom, that they are bride,gi"ers2taAers to one another, this potential cross,se. image is Ju.taposed by the companion image that redescribes that relationship as one bet>een Dsame,se.E page3)1$

Page )(' mothers and daughters @nly on the occasion of public display, >hen they maAe their products "isible, are donors and recei"ers of money radically separated, and this occasion is cast into a cross,se. frame>orA: the mediating inter"entions of men Das booAAeepers, spoAesmenE are reGuired !ntil that moment, one groupFs gro>th is seen to lie in another similar group As long as it gro>s, it is emergent from but not yet detached from its body The en"eloping maternal body is thus percei"ed as gro>ing the daughters 4t is in the anticipation of an e"entual relationship bet>een source and outcomeeach of >hich is defined by the otherthat their interaction can be called one of unmediated e.change -or in being gro>n, the daughter group also gro>s its mother 4t does not looA for autonomy until its o>n Fcoming outF ceremony 4n describing 5aulo >omenFs acti"ities, 4 e"oAed the en"eloping maternity of Gimi planters and gro>ers of crops As long as the plant is in the ground, Gimi >omen claim a totali6ing relationship: they are the plantFs caretaAer; the plant is e"idence of their capacity to gro> things 4n fact, this eGuation appears necessary !nless the >oman is seen to taAe care, gro>th cannot occur And the Lsilent gro>th of the human foetus encompassed by its motherL DGillison *$&':*1&E is an image upon >hich garden spells dra>, in tender encouragement of the young plants *$ The milA and food she later gi"es her child ha"e effects internal to its body; the food is nourishing because it is the motherFs food ;ut the motherFs feeding role de"elops only once she has e.ternali6ed the child, and it e.ists as a thing apart from her This separation seems to be a prereGuisite for the childFs body to gro> or s>ell from its o>n inside @utside the maternal body, then, the effects of gro>th are accomplished through the one person DmotherE being seen as the origin of the other DchildE ;ut the temporal seGuencing is important: one person must e.ist in a form prior to the other This symboli6ation appears general throughout the 7ighlands, if not Melanesia 4ndeed, the >idespread FidentificationF of >omen >ith the gro>ing crops or >ith the pigs that they nurture is to be Ju.taposed to those rather fe> conte.ts in >hich >omen engage in De.ternalE collecti"e acti"ity The maternal relationship bet>een a >oman and her products appears in an image of internal multiplication and replication The image is one of a body and its as yet undetached parts 4t is the mother, as it >ere, >ho gro>s @nce gro>n, ho>e"er, the detached things Dfood and childrenE can be used in either a mediating or nonmediating manner page3)(' Page )(* -ood >hich a mother pro"ides may be regarded as a female "ersion of male food, as in Sambia D>here breast milA is deri"ed from semenE, or it may, as in 7agen, be regarded as a distincti"e product of maternal >orA that is combined >ith but not identified >ith paternal >orA The latter construct gi"es rise to the possibility of food becoming a mediating obJect These possibilities Dmediatory and unmediatoryE >ill be differentiated by social conte.t )' The food >hich, in being intended for a child, creates an unmediated e.change bet>een mother and child, acGuires a potentially mediatory character at the moment mother and child are seen to be distinct social entities -eeding and gro>ing relationships do indeed ha"e to be distinguished -or a further +urocentric image to be discarded lies in the idea, often imputed to Melanesian cultural practice, that food creates identity, >ith the implication that food contributes directly to the substance of persons, and that substance is al>ays an inner condition 8ather, the relationship bet>een the internal and e.ternal forms of a child depends on its location internal or e.ternal to the maternal body, and one cannot assume continuity bet>een the causes of fetal gro>th and the causes of gro>th after birth DThey are separated in time E The Sa,speaAers of Pentecost Dchap 1E certainly posit a direct connection bet>een the intaAe of certain foods and agnatic identity in images of internal substance ;ut there are other situations, such as paternal feeding on the Trobriands, >here substance remains on the surface What is >ithin has no substance @r one might thinA of Muyu> >here a mother distributes her husbandFs food to their child 4t is not the food as such that must be analy6ed, but the feeding relationship, the Guestion of >hether food is Fgi"enF Dmediated e.changeE or FsharedF DunmediatedE D@F7anlon and -ranAland, in pressE The effect of the food >ill "ary according to the source from >hich it comes What >ill "ary is its potential to cause gro>th Their assimilation to specific social sources is a correlate of the personification process by >hich persons are made socially distinct from one another )* The distincti"eness of the source rests on the anticipated detachment of the outcome -ood, plants, people, and animals are all persons in this sense They are FidentifiedF >ith others >ho pro"ide a base or support for but >ho are not themsel"es eGui"alent in social identity to >hat they nurture The o"erall result of this partial or metonymical identification as far as people are concerned is their location >ith respect to uniGue and particular social others ;ut in FproducedF form

they are also things, the outcome of these othersF acts page3)(* Page )() 'ropagating 'eople+ 'ropagating Clans1 4 return to the Western 7ighlands and to 7agen >here, in their different >ays, both male and female parents are regarded as gro>ing and feeding their child, e"en as their substances combine in conception A child gro>s in dual form, nourished by both Although food produced by the mother from the fatherFs land has an androgynous character, each parent may also be concei"ed as a separate and uniGue, unmediated source for the childFs identity ;ut >hereas the father establishes that identity after birth, planting the childFs umbilical cord in a fenced enclosure on his clan land DA Strathern *$&)b:**$*)'; ;loch and Parry *$&):0'E, the mother establishes it before birth The child gro>s her, contributing to FherF gro>th before it gro>s the father and his clan The temporal distinction separates them A unitary identification bet>een 7agen mother and child holds most po>erfully >hile the child is as yet unborn Much as the har"esting of food acti"ates multiple claims >hich e.tinguish the >omanFs e.clusi"e identification >ith it, )) so birth e.tinguishes this prior conflation, bringing into the >orld a child >ith a multiple identity There is an analogy in the >ay pigs that ha"e circulated as e.clusi"e male >ealth are returned to the multiple claims of the domestic household ;ut by >hat de"ices is this unitary maternal construction achie"edM The claims a >oman has on the crops she has planted offer another analogy A 7agen >oman is not regarded as a container to the plants, any more than she is a container for a child 8ather, her progeny become identified >ith her particular contribution to its e"entual multiple identity, the >orA through >hich she tends the crops 4t is >ith this part of her that a plant is unified as long as it is gro>ing in the ground The same,se. identity bet>een a 7agen >oman and her plants, then, is an identity less >ith her total body Das their FmotherFE than >ith the part she brings to the conJugal relationship Dher >orAE 4n relation to that part, ho>e"er, her claims are total This is e.plicit: a >ifeFs e.clusi"e connection is established by the "ery acti"ity of planting A 7agen >ife is conceptuali6ed as one of a pair: male and female >orA from a conJugally producti"e union, an image repeated in the fertility ritual of 7agen Spirit cults that proclaim the producti"ity of pairing itself She encompasses her o>n capacity to create an alliance >ith her spouse 7er efforts are her partible contribution, and it is as a FpartF that the >omanFs >orA is publicly celebrated Women are not in a position to create for themsel"es a self,contained domain of "alue liAe menFs ceremonial e.change sphere 8ather, >omenFs autonomy is page3)() Page )(0 e.ercised in relation to the parts >hich they thus ha"e at their disposal, both mental and physical This gi"es their autonomy a political cast Wi"es and husbands are liAe allies; >i"es e.ercise choice, their >orA is "oluntary, and there is al>ays a Guestion of loyalty and commitment and thus the internal relationship bet>een parts of their mind 4f anything maAes things gro> in 7agen, it is a detachable component of the FmindF: the >ifeFs effort as a matter of her intellectual and emotional commitment to>ards >hat she is doing 4t is >ith a part of her, then, that the gro>ing obJect is DtotallyE identified 4n the case of children, this identification lays the basis for relations >ith maternal Ain, >ho are so essential for its healthy gro>th: they are only an element in an o"erall social identity, yet in relation to them the person e.periences drastic bodily dependence This bodily dependence has its analogy in dependence upon clan paternal ghosts, >ho also o"ersee health Parallel to the maternal nurture is thus the FpartF contributed by the father #lan land, clan food, and clan ancestral support are all eGually essential for gro>th, and Ainship e.changes gi"e these paired sources of gro>th eGual recognition A component of Ainship,based transactions is in"ariably porA Dby contrast >ith the circulation of li"e pigs in mo.aE Pigs intended for maternal Ain are initially Ailled at the donorsF homesteads, an act that simultaneously in"ol"es sacrifice to their o>n, primarily paternal, ancestral ghosts )0 The political emphasis of the 7agen regime appears to foster menFs fears about >omenFs misdirected minds or their succumbing to an o"er>eening desire to consume >hat they should be gro>ing DA Strathern *$&)bE Such fears are perhaps produced by the contri"ed nature of the unifications !nity only partially conceals an anticipated dual or multiple identity And it is only appropriate for certain stages in the de"elopment of the child2food Thus the 7agen >omanFs claims to the gro>ing crops she has planted depend for their

effecti"eness on the fact that her >orA is also part of the Joint >orA of the spouses, and it is concei"ed as separate only in relation to the husbandFs 4f she simply FtooA bacAF her o>n food, that is, reabsorbed it into herself as though it >ere not Joined >ith anotherFs, she >ould negate her o>n capacity for gro>th A comparison can be made here >ith those +astern 7ighlands peoples >hose construction of the maternal body as a container nourishes the eschatological fear that the mother >ill fore"er retain the products >ithin )1 There must be some guarantee that internal differentiation Dbet>een mother and childE >ill occur, for there has to be an anticipation page3)(0 Page )(1 of it That guarantee lies in the contri"ance by >hich en"eloping maternal gro>th is in turn en"eloped by a male container This is an analogue of the en"eloping femaleness of the male body essential to the unitary construction of males >ithin the FbodyF of a cult house Male containment of female nurture is, 4 suggest, crucial to its producti"e character: the e.ternal differentiation ensures the internal one, that the outcome of the necessary unity bet>een child and mother >ill be the de"elopment of a necessarily distinct social entity 4ts potential separation DmalenessE is signalled The structure is e"ident in horticultural practices FF4deallyL, it is obser"ed of the Gimi, Lmen organi6e and construct the boundaries >ithin >hich >omen care for children, pigs and s>eet potatoes, >hile men alone "enture outside those limits men compare their freedom to enter the unfenced, outlying orchards of F>ildF Dsemi,culti"atedE pandanus >ith the confinement of >omen to indi"idual plots inside fenced gardensL DGillison *$&':*1(*16, transposedE The same de"ice of en"eloping the en"eloper is found in 7agen The 7agen man >ho e.plained ho> >omen >ere on menFs FhandsF, indicated an image of a fence >ithin >hich a >ife is enclosed and thus encompassed by the >orA of her husband #ontainment is also implied in the social identity of her husbandFs clan land on >hich the >oman resides, >here she gro>s her chief crops, and >hich to the child is paternal land 4ndeed, throughout the 7ighlands, territory is associated >ith menFs collecti"e organi6ation MenFs collecti"e acti"ities also ser"e to contain, then, and must be taAen as a general adJunct of maternal agency Thus it is by "irtue of the bride>ealth he ga"e that a Paiela husband is said to ha"e FplantedF his >ife Fin the middle of the gardenFLin that center of e.clusi"ity the garden fence createsL D;iersacA *$&1:*)6E )( 4n 7agen, the male identity of the husbandFs2fatherFs land is replicated: it is also thought of as his o>n fatherFs land Whether a >oman resides >ith her husband or is bacA at home >ith her brothers, the "ery territory is conceptually agnatic 7er partaAing of its products D"ia the food she gro>sE in"ests her o>n body >ith its strength -or these FpatrilinealF systems, the idiom in planting is "ery clear: the >ifeFs plants are en"eloped by soil classified as the husbandFs )6 The territorial source of nurture is specific DMac9ean *$&(:**)E 9iAe the particularity of the tie >ith the mother, it >ould seem that the particular agnatic identity Dthis clan as opposed to that clanE is critical 7ageners do not thinA of soil itself as inherently FmaleF What is significant is its social identity, page3)(1 Page )(( and FclanF claims are mediated through the gardens a man cuts on his o>n fatherFs or immediate lineageFs particular land 4t has al>ays remained something of a comparati"e pu66le that in Western 7ighlands societies such as 7agen, >here stress is placed on bigmanship and achie"ement, systems that seem to produce a heightened sense of personal autonomy on the part of both men and >omen should also display the most firmly established Fdescent groupsF )% :et >e tend to taAe as self,e"ident the eGuation of the clan >ith the male person We should also asA >hat Aind of unitary identity this is 9iAe the unity established bet>een a >oman and her gro>ing plants2children, it maAes a totali6ing statement about >hat is only a part of a manFs social identity A clan has unity in the conte.t of its e.traclan alliances and enmities 4t is hardly fortuitous that allies, liAe husbands and >i"es, are canonically paired 7agen clans compete in terms of the strength and resources they ha"e dra>n into themsel"es rather than through the recitation of histories or Ano>ledge of secret names or some aspect of apparently intrinsic identity as is practiced else>here in Melanesia #lans compete in numbers and numbers not Just of born members but of added members To attract nonagnates is to s>ell the clan body by men >hom it can FtaAe

and plantF )& The autonomous, unitary clan puts things on its sAin /ot only is the >ealth that comes to it a sign of its e.ternal relations >ith its allies, but it also regards itself as thereby enabled to propagate crops, pigs, and >omen internally All these are detachable entities, as >e ha"e seen, the clan being thus a source of something that both stands for and is different from itself 4n so far as men do the detaching, they instigate the flo>, and >hat they add and detach are FfemaleF things Their e.ternal relations >ith allies and partners may thus be en"isaged, at certain points, in cross,se. terms The returns as prestige come as FmaleF additions @ne could say that prestige is female >ealth in male form ;y contrast, there is no hidden metaphoric relation to be established bet>een the clan members and the same,se. identity of the clan That is o"ert A clan increases, accreting to itself entities not of its o>n origin, and its singular actions are thereby made "isible This "isibility is the re"elatory process 4 ha"e called FproductionF or Fe.tractionFthe dra>ing of one form out of another 4n the same >ay as a man depends on his e.change partner, a clan depends on its allies to maAe itself "isible The clan also regards itself as a source of internal gro>th, a gro>th page3)(( Page )(6 that s>ells its contours and replicates its form The unitary construction depicts men as gro>ers #lansmen display a homogeneous identity: they are a single man The land they e.ist upon and the ancestors >ho encircle them all replicate clanship The specific identity of patrilineal groups means that the clan specifically gro>s its o>n agnates This capacity is also its capacity to create e.ternal relations, for it is as agnates that its sisters and daughters are gro>n 7agen men thus gro> >omen And the men do it through the effort they apply to prepare the land to yield food -ood is the product of a relation DhusbandFs and >ifeFs >orAE, but in its encompassing male origin, its source in the soil, can also be thought of as paternal A cross,se. relation is con"erted to a uniGue Dsame,se.E capacity And this is the sense in >hich clans gro> persons on its soil, sometimes referred to as its bones 7ence the FgreaseF in clan territory that nourishes plants and people is food in male form, though the term itself refers to semen and breast milA aliAe DA Strathern *$%%:('1('%; *$&)b:**$*)'E Although 7agen >omen may be thought of as FthingsF, liAe >ealth, they are not o"ertly conceptuali6ed as Fon menFs sAinsF They are also persons Fto be looAed afterF, especially so of incoming >i"es And in being looAed after, the subJect of her husbandFs >orA, the >ife becomes through time herself planted The term that signifies a human being, a planted being Dm)oE, is also the term for a ne> shoot, a point of gro>th 4ncoming >i"es gi"e their o>n clan names to the gro>ing subclans as they differentiate themsel"es liAe so many shoots from the homogeneous clan body; the >omen e.ternali6e them We must distinguish bet>een t>o images of internal gro>th ;oth rest on the replication of relations but relations concei"ed from t>o "ie>pointsfrom the "ie>point of the o"erarching clan, and from the "ie>point of >hat appear as its constituent subunits The one "ie>point is of a body >hose segments internally proliferate, propagating themsel"es liAe so many daughter groups, to borro> an idiom from 5aulo /ot yet detached, in being gro>n these internal segments also gro> the outer body This one might call the "ie> from clanship 4ts counterpart is a Ainship "ie>, that is, the celebration of the historical specificity of lineages and subclans, already distinct and detached through their o>n e.tra,clan ties, named after incoming >i"es The former is of a contemporaneous collecti"itythe men >ho count themsel"es clan members here and no>>hile the latter is a chronological image of a series of particular e"ents, of specific marriages and e.ternal connections The distinction is significant page3)(6 Page )(% #lan relationships are formed on the replicability of ties #lans are Fone shootF; the singularity of this construct being based on the replication of its indi"idual male members #lans do not ha"e o"erarching genealogies They compose a series of single men Same,se. ties in the conte.t of collecti"e beha"ior ha"e the potential to transform asymmetrical DFAinshipFE into symmetrical DFclanshipFE relations #lansmen only collect together on the basis of >hat they replicate, >hat they ha"e in common SchefflerFs D*$&(:*(E comment that 7ighlands group members do not appear mutually substitutable for one another may apply to the Ainship representation of 7agen lineages, e"en subclans, but certainly not to clans @n the contrary, clans are constituted as units and as composed only of units Se"erally or together their parts are al>ays Fone manF, Fone nameF, Fone stocAF DA Strathern *$%):*&E Abo"e all, they are one on the basis of effecti"e collecti"e action itself

Scheffler argues that clan ideologies, the idioms of common fatherhood or the solidarity of brothers, appeal not to descent but simply to differentiation and obligation through Ain relations, that is, by Ain class DL>e are all brothersLE D*$&(:*0E ;ut indigenous rhetoric actually forces particularistic relations based on Ainship to ser"e the interests of collecti"e action A 7agen clan is not simply a Ain group blo>n up in si6e 4t is a transformation of Ain,based relations, an argument Mac9ean D*$&(E has offered for their northern neighbours, the Maring )$ 7agen clans are abo"e all units of collecti"e action, and clanship must be seen as a manifestation of male collecti"e life, a deliberate artifact that stands o"er and against the particularities of Ainship ties What confuses us perhaps is the absence of domains <inship is not e"inced in bilateral net>orAs DFfiliationFE against unilineal group formation DFdescentFE, one domain of DFcognaticFE relations against those of some other Aind DFagnaticFE 8ather, as has been true of so many conte.ts throughout this account, men transform their o>n relations The Ainship particularity of agnatic lineage relations are turned into the collecti"e uniformity of agnatic clan relations 4t is the rhetoric of collecti"e action >hich presents the former as though they >ere simply a subset of or at a lo>er organi6ational le"el than the latter, as though lineage >ere an internal replication of clanship The analytical conflation of descent and Ainship, >hich -eil D*$&1aE noted in 7ighlands anthropology, has simply responded to this rhetoric The rhetoric supposes a segmenting continuity 7agen subclans Fdi"ideF into smaller units Dsubsubclans, lineagesE Though lineage brothers are not formally differentiated as senior2Junior siblings as else>here in page3)(% Page )(& Melanesia, these lo>est le"el groupings sustain genealogies that gi"e e"eryone a specific place The particularity of these lineage relationships gi"es them >hat 4 call their FAinshipF aspect ;et>een fathers and sons, bet>een brothers and sisters, bet>een older and younger, genealogical differentiation is sustained by asymmetries of obligation and reciprocity; in the case of close patrilateral Ain, asymmetries are imposed by the contingencies of history D>ho helped >hom >henE Thus same,se. ties bet>een brothers can be minutely and internally differentiated in terms of their indi"idual histories of cooperation and estrangement And their cross,se. ties D>ith affines and maternal AinE ha"e a particularistic significance for their personal prosperity and health The idiom of Fone bloodF is used for intimate intralineage connections, a deliberately ambiguous construct, for the FbloodF so concei"ed may be maternal or2and paternal, and the phrase refers to close cognates as >ell as close agnates There is thus an important disJunction bet>een the clan, defined by the rule of e.ogamy, and Ainship units that organi6e marriage, normally lineages or subsubclans This is not simply e.pediency or a Guestion of management 8ather >e should see the e.ogamic rule as a creati"e transformation of Ainship relations >hich generali6es the asymmetry of Ain,based relations into an attribute of clanship As >ife,gi"er or >ife,taAer the clan can maAe itself asymmetrical and uneGual >ith respect to other clans; that is, it can particulari6e itself This metaphoric transformation represents the clan as though it >ere a body of Ain And in that regard, the FclanF is seen as ha"ing partible sisters and daughters to gro> 4n turn, being able to gro> sisters and daughters depends on the e.ogamic rule, on their anticipated status as >i"es and mothers to other clans The clan turns the cross,se. ties of Ainship relations into an aspect of its o>n constitution, its capacity to maAe e.ternal alliances The rule of e.ogamy creates the clan in one of t>o forms, as its o>n relations >ith its allies and as FitselfF 9iAe the effect of the dual flo>s of male and female >ealth on Trobriand dala identity, on the one hand the 7agen clan is composed of male and female members Dbrothers and sistersE; on the other hand, it is a homogeneous entity >hose internal relations are same,se. -or internal difference is eliminated >hen the clan body, di"ided into male and female agnates, e.ternali6es one category of these Dthe femaleE in its pairing relations >ith other clans +.ternal relations, through the e.change of >omen, thus Aeep clans distincti"ely separate from one another They depend on this separation page3)(& Page )($ for their distincti"eness and thus on those >ith >hom they intermarry Allies are regarded as paired, and the producti"e parallel to the Trobriand brother,sister relation is that bet>een the 7agen husband and >ife

4ndi"idual spouses form a pair in that they combine their distinct parts in a single enterprise What is analogous about the husbandFs and the >ifeFs >orA, the semen and blood that mingles together to form a fetus, is that each is deri"ed from its o#n paternal clan 4n turn clans can thus be seen as analogues of one another They are separated, as 4 ha"e emphasi6ed, only by the e.ogamic rule into potential marriage partners, gi"ing rise to the difference bet>een linAs Fthrough menF and linAs Fthrough >omenF The rule gi"es a particularity to each agnate, besto>ing on each his or her o>n e.ternal ties, >hich means that the >ifeFs agnatic identity is no more compromised by marriage than is her husbandFs That dual social source guarantees their perpetual distincti"eness in the same >ay as e.ogamy has already separated the destinies of brothers and sisters #onseGuently, as analogues of one another, clans are also seen to encompass >ithin themsel"es FpartsF of other clans #lansmen thus imagine themsel"es as a single same,se. man, the one figure simultaneously encompassing in male form t>o types of agnates, male and female The single man is a performance 4f clans are conceptuali6ed as bodies of males, it is the arena of e"ents in >hich they e.change >ith, compete >ith, and fight one another >hich emphasi6es their singleness of gender We might say that they attempt to impose asymmetriesas though bet>een marriage partners and affines>here none necessarily e.ist -or the maleness of the clan sho>s in its o>n internal capacity to maAe e.ternal relations, and the gro>ing of >omen >ho >ill become >i"es2for >hom >i"es >ill be substituted is a dramatic metaphor for its capacity and potential po>er in general 0' +ach reali6ation of this specific capacity depends, ho>e"er, on a particular pairing relation >ith the specific affines >ho >ill elicit the e.ternal relationship 4 defined encompassment as the encapsulation of anotherFs "ie>point, a containment of an anticipated outcome The clan encompasses, as it >ere, the fact that from a Ainship point of "ie> its agnates are e.ternally differentiated as particular persons >ho >ill maAe connections >ith this or that other set of Ain 4t claims these particularities for itself 4n the same >ay, it is able to encompass the multiple e.change achie"ements of its indi"idual male members as though Fthe clanF >ere a unit of e.change 4t thus appears to encompass Fits o>nF products, its things, the sisters and >ealth it has gro>n Appearance is all: the page3)($ Page )6' construct consists in the aesthetic impact of the clanFs performance on its audience #lansmen must induce potential recipients to elicit their >ealth, as the allies on >hom they depend for >i"es must be made to elicit sisters 4n the >ay men thinA about the clan, they thus anticipate the response of others They encompass it >ithin themsel"es 7agen >i"es encompass >ithin themsel"es the efforts that their husbands >ill elicit from them Their >orA can only ha"e this outcome; yet its efficacy is construed as locAed >ithin their minds, their moti"ations secret and inaccessible until that point A husbandFs efforts do not carry the same >eight to>ards his >ife, for his moti"ations are already e.ternali6ed in relation to her in so far as his clan has its o>n claims on his efforts The parallel for him is his pairing >ith an e.change partner or his clanFs pairing >ith its ally 7ere moti"ations are held secret until the moment of display 4ndeed, if the Trobriand yam pole is a female >omb in male form, the 7agen Fone manF >ho gi"es a>ay FfemaleF >ealth on a ceremonial e.change occasion is also an encompassing male form ;ut there is a difference in the images The single erect man is not supported by a triangular base; 7agen men paint red triangles on their noses 8ather, the upright body itself is replicated shoulder to shoulder, a hori6ontal line of "ertical dancers bobbing up and do>n and s>aying bacA and forth The amount of mo"ement al>ays gi"es an impression a little short of unison ;ut as a collecti"ity of men, the Fone manF thus contains >ithin his singular form a multiplicity of e.ternal connections To meet the aesthetic criterion of success, the clan must sho> its contours as a straight line, 0* and it so composes itself in front of a heterogeneous and disparate audience >ho >ill include the "ery persons so connected MaAing More 8elations 5ifferences e.ist bet>een the se"eral societies to >hich 4 ha"e been referring 4 ha"e used a sAetchy Western 7ighlands2+astern 7ighlands contrast to Aeep the sense of difference in mind The general propositions about personification and reification seem to hold, and all these 7ighlands peoples maAe a distinction bet>een mediated and unmediated e.change ;ut this should really be put the other >ay round Thus 4 ha"e discussed mediated constructions in a specific social en"ironment in >hich they can be indigenously compared to and distinguished from unmediated ones: e.changes bet>een Ain taAe place in the presence of cult or clan or political acti"ity of a collecti"e nature; that is, the meta, page3)6'

Page )6* phors a"ailable for thinAing about particular Ain interactions include collecti"e, Fnon,AinF acti"ities, and "ice "ersa There are interesting conseGuences here for comparati"e analysis ;et>een 7ighlands societies, >hat seems to differ is >hat is taAen for granted The compulsion of the anticipated outcome means that one set of relations can al>ays be en"isaged from another point of "ie>, as an outcome of another set Anticipation is a preemption of >hat >ill happen And >ith respect to the production and reproduction of children, of food, of artifacts, people seem to start >ith different premises about >hat has already happened Dchap (E 0) Thus 7ageners taAe for granted an established distinction bet>een a husband and his >ifeFs father, >here Gimi >orA to create that distinction bet>een them @ne organi6ational conseGuence lies in the emphasis placed on Ainship in collecti"e and ceremonial life 4n chapter 0 4 made a broad comparison bet>een societies, as found among +astern 7ighlanders, >here collecti"e life appears an adJunct to the >ay in >hich Ainship produces more Ainship, and those Western 7ighlands systems >here male collecti"e life appears to create DpoliticalE forms of its o>n 00 @r one could put the comparison in terms of the incremental possibilities in the organi6ation of relationships; or simply >hether differentiation bet>een Ain is or is not taAen for grantednot Ain relations as an entire uni"erse, because one specific set al>ays has to be established "is,P,"is another, but at the point of their chief producti"e potential ;y this 4 mean ho> persons DrelationsE are propagated as things 7ighland metaphors generally seem to focus on the procreation of children; in the Massim people attend to the production of the FfinishedF thing, the person at the end of her or his life 7o>e"er, >ithin any one society, >hat is taAen for granted may itself be Guestioned at certain moments, and the issue of increment is rather more comple. than it looAs A summary of obser"ations on Ain e.changes in 7agen, in the Western 7ighlands, >ill remind the reader that the form in >hich 4 concei"e the comparison is prompted by the internal manifestations of 7agen sociality 7agen >orA is unmediated e"idence of the e.tent to >hich the personFs mind is directed to>ards his or her o>n acti"ities, and to>ards the part he or she plays >ith respect to another party A person can sho> a greater or lesser commitment DFmindFE to>ards the ensuing relationship, but its essential definition is taAen as gi"en While domestic >orA thus maAes relations of Ainship and affinity "isible, the effort appears to entail no social increment; it cannot add to the form of rela, page3)6* Page )6) tions: it simply affirms or denies them When such >orA is terminated at death, compensation is due to the person >ho has lost part of her or himself in the relationship that has FdiedF DThe loss is of social engagement, of a source of identity E 5omestic reciprocity contrasts >ith the social producti"ity of ceremonial e.change >here >ealth mediates ne> relationships #onseGuently Ain,based transactions in 7agen simply confirm the multiple origins of persons, primarily in reference to their maternal and paternal Ain The duality of their immediate procreati"e origins is replicated in the origins of their parents, or through the marriages of siblings and children and the multiplicity of a personFs dealings >ith particular Ain 7o>e"er, this leads to the counterfactual possibility of creating a unity or singleness of purpose, the sense of unity >orAing against the multiple orientations of a personFs mind; people impress themsel"es >ith this fact ;odies as >ell as minds are multiple A 7agen child is created through a metonymic transaction bet>een parents, each contributing a part of their substance >hile retaining their distincti"eness The relationship is reified in the child >ho substitutes for it, and >ho duplicates the identity of neither parent but combines them both >ithin itself 4ts androgyny symboli6es a completed transaction As an inert obJectification of a relation, it cannot be further reproducti"e, but it can be added to a male or female person2collecti"ity A part is thus also concei"able as an increment !nder agnatic regimes of the 7agen Aind, >ealth, children, and persons in general, incorporating an internal relation bet>een maternal and paternal Ain and thus in themsel"es androgynous, become "isible as increments to others >ith >hom they are related :et the conceptuali6ation of the child as though it >ere >ealth holds only to a limited e.tent The propagation of children in 7agen is also liAe the propagation of food The result of an interaction bet>een mother and father, the child does not mediate further relationships: it is not an item >hich can Fflo>F bet>een persons The child e.ists only Fbet>eenF the particular affinal Ain in"ol"ed, fi.ed by the history of their relationships 4ts fi.ity is established in the fact that, by contrast >ith ceremonial e.change partnerships, there is more to the separation of its mother and father than is created by the transactions bet>een them They are not re"ersibly differentiated simply as donor and recipient; they are irreversi)ly

differentiated by their o>n paternal clans of origin The conJugal relationship is in turn both liAe and unliAe that bet>een e.change partners, a source of its metaphoric po>er in the >ay people page3)6) Page )60 thinA of ceremonial e.change itself, as >e sa> in chapter & @n the one hand, marriage is contingent on the performance of both partnerstheir commitment determines >hether or not the relationship >ill endure @n the other hand, the commitment indicates not their e.change autonomy but the fact that through nurture each partner has made the other asymmetrically dependent on him2her Thus, at times, stress appears to be on ho> spouses Fgi"eF to each other, and sustain a relationship of reciprocity; at other times, that gifts cannot flo> bet>een them, for they FJoin togetherF or one FhelpsF the other in production and consumption -rom this point of "ie>, the 7agen child does not mediate bet>een them, for it linAs t>o irre"ersibly unliAe entities Transactions focused on the child are transactions to maAe it gro> :et that historical fi.ity is compromised And it is compromised by the "ery acts >hich celebrate it>hen >ealth is gi"en at marriage or in the form of childbirth or mortuary payments to maternal and affinal Ain Maternal Ain hold a special place as reifications of that element of the 7agen person >hich deri"es from his2her mother; matrilateral connections may be en"isaged as e.ternal additions to the agnate And >hether neglected or fostered, they are not to be disposed of When agnatic identity is in turn considered as a contributory part of the person, matrilateral connections appear not as additions but as a comparable counterpart Maternal and paternal parts are paired as sources of gro>th and health to be dually maintained to sustain future >ell,being Ancestral ghosts on the motherFs side are particularly significant for the deli"ery of the child at its birth, and they pri"ately continue to o"ersee its health 4ndeed, unmediated transactions bet>een Ain are ordinarily co"ert Persons ha"e direct influence upon one another as far as both their intentions and their bodily health are concerned, but only the effect is "isible When intention is made e.plicit, ho>e"er, >hen nurture is acAno>ledged through gift e.change, the interactions assume an o"ert form Maintenance of fertility no> becomes subJect to successful e.change, one of the "ictims of this transformation being parturient mothers >ho fear that inadeGuate transactions >ill Jeopardi6e the childFs emergence 4n other >ords, relatedness ceases to be taAen for granted <in relations come to be the subJect of transactions, and people engage in e.panding them in the only >ay possibleby maAing FmoreF Ainship They increase the "elocity >ith >hich items circulate and the intensity >ith >hich people interact A child must maintain good relations >ith its maternal Ain for its gro>th and health; motherFs milA, the >orA of page3)60 Page )61 nurture, becomes a 7agen reason for e.change bet>een affinally connected clans; a poor bride>ealth may lead to an annulment or di"orce, and a failure to maAe proper mortuary payments to accusations of neglect or treachery <inship is transformed under these circumstances of o"ert communication A transactional risA enters into the continuity of relationships; for the penalties for failure are not simply the termination of relationships as bet>een e.change partners, but damage and ill health to the person Perhaps it is not surprising that such transactions are subJect to further acti"ity Through sacrifice, people attempt both to ma.imi6e the mediatory possibilities of gift e.change, thereby molding Ainship relationships in terms of interest and ad"antage, and to restore the domestic presumption that Ain persons a.iomatically depend upon and care for one another Apart from the strongly sacrificial element in 7agen Ain,based e.changes themsel"es DAilling pigs to celebrate stages in a childFs progress for instanceE, engagement >ith ancestral ghosts mobili6es domestic sociality Dchap (E, as is possibly also true of the performance of ambulatory Spirit cults +arlier, 4 pointed to the relations of dependency at the center of Paiela puberty ceremonies and the initiation rites of the +astern 7ighlands as >ell as to their collecti"i6ed nature The collecti"e conte.t of such cult acti"ity stimulates a flo> of messages about the caliber of the relationships in Guestion, through >hat appears the "ehicle of mediating items ;ut in communicating >ith ancestral ghosts and spirits, people may lea"e transactions incomplete: there is an asymmetric transmission of messages, a co"ert return desired for an o"ert act 4ndeed, the incompleteness may actually guarantee the FdomesticF producti"ity aimed for The sacrificing congregation do not >ant an e.change of messages; they >ant to be made healthy, to e.perience the effects of ancestral blessing in an unmediated form The last thing they reGuire is a return FgiftF from the spirits This

asymmetry partly e.plains the destructi"e element in sacrifice: the gift is properly destroyed, for it is not a gift >hich is sought in return 4n societies >here initiation and marriage rituals taAe center stageoften demanding lengthy periods of timepeople maAe Ftransformed AinshipF their chief problem They >orA at maAing "isible >hat >orAs by being Aept hidden; and they >orA at FreproducingF themsel"es, at maAing more Ainship Sources of gro>th and the possibility of substance loss become ha6ards of the interchanges ;y their o>n recursi"e acts, Sambia men find themsel"es ha"ing to feed the food they impart What page3)61 Page )6( 7ageners construct in clan formthe male body separated from others by its detachable sistersmay ha"e to be constructed >ithin the indi"idual bodies of men DSambiaE or of >omen DGimiE Men and >omen must sho> an internal separation of parts 01 5ifferentiation bet>een father and daughter or husband and >ife is created in the course of their encounters, bet>een themsel"es and in relation to specific e.ternal others, as a matter of deliberate contri"ance 4n 7agen the e.ogamic rule combines >ith marriage dispersion to guarantee the a.iomatic separation of spouses This creates the possibility of mediatory e.changes bet>een Ain themsel"es 4n mediated transactions, separation besto>s a particular "alue on the part of himself that the donor gi"es a>ay; as 4 ha"e argued, he is able to reappropriate that "alue, so that he is personally augmented by all the relationships through >hich the obJects ha"e flo>ed The idea of persons so besto>ing parts of themsel"es on others entails political possibilities 8osman and 8ubel D*$%&E ha"e documented generally for Melanesia the e.tent to >hich Ain,based e.changes ha"e o"ert political functions, and Ainties are or are not the basis of other partnerships 0( 4n 7agen, gifts bet>een Ain celebrate their dependency upon one another; the relationship is already defined and in that sense taAen for granted Although the parties to the transaction may be donors and recipients, they are also other social persons DsisterFs sons and motherFs brothers, sayE by "irtue of the one relationship bet>een them >hich is the rationale for the gift Thus, >hen a sisterFs son gi"es items to his motherFs brother under the rationale of a return for maternal nurture, a prior and asymmetric relationship is e"oAed ;ut the 7agen case is interesting for the e.tent to >hich Ain,ties are staged to be transformed into political ones 7ere nothing is taAen for granted The 7agen maintenance of good relations >ith maternal Ain shades off into political e.pectations, and these come to include the maAing of good >ealth e.changes themsel"es #hild payments to maternal Ain, bride>ealth, and certain aspects of mortuary payments all ha"e the capacity to be e.panded into incremental mo.a: indeed, beyond initial gifts under these rubrics, mo.a is their enduring form /e"ertheless, bet>een Ain, the items also continue to refer to the "alues >hich persons ha"e for one another not present in ordinary e.change partnerships FActualF Ain are in"ol"ed in these transactions, a contrast >ith systems centrally focused on Ain e.changes, >here substitute Ain often become channels for the flo> of >ealth This is not the parado. it seems When 7agen men e.pand relations beyond an immediate circle of Ain, they page3)6( Page )66 turn them into generali6ed mo.a partnerships; else>here, FAinshipF itself may be generali6ed, and classificatory relati"es stand in as recipients of Ain gifts 06 The domain of Ain,based e.changes thus remains strictly limited in 7agen 4t is less that Ain debts are settled through ceremonial e.change than that a ne> class of debts is created, since affines >ho do not press their relation into the ser"ice of ceremonial e.change may feel cheated of the political benefit their relationship might ha"e brought 4t is no parado. either that to liAen marriage e.change to mo.a in general, as 7agen men do, is part of the separation of domestic Ainship from political life The rhetoric does not simply model mo.a on the asymmetric dependencies bet>een affinally and maternally related Ain That "isible part of menFs acti"ity in marriage negotiations >hich in"ol"es their public presentation is assimilated to the Ainds of political confrontations >hich characteri6e participation on other occasions Male affines can beha"e as though they >ere e.change partners #on"ersely, by contrast >ith the enduring asymmetries created in other 7ighlands marriage systems, asymmetries bet>een the gi"ers and recipients of brides are played do>n @nce the initial affinal prestations are o"er, relations bet>een them tend to eGuali6e 4neGualities remain in the bacAground, taAen for granted

4 return to an obser"ation made in chapter (: Paiela men ha"e to compel >omen to gro> them, to force a transaction bet>een entities already differentiated Gimi, >ho taAe gro>th for granted, ha"e to force the differentiation through establishing the distinct social identities of encompasser2encompassed, source2product, gro>er2gro>n; creating the difference bet>een these t>o identities maAes the one yield the other and separation is accomplished The FproblemF generated by the former compulsion is that e"en if children are separated from the identities of their male and female parents, they must still be made to gro> Where children are regarded as implanted >ithin the mother, as in the latter, they must still be detached from her body As long as a product is encompassed >ithin its source it gro>s; but e"idence of it ha"ing gro>n can only be gi"en >hen it separately embodies the gro>th in an independent form 4t is such "isible e"idence of separation and gro>th >hich both ceremonial e.change and initiation cults seeA to display #onseGuently, mediated transactions of the ceremonial e.change type define the Guality of a relationship Dits history of debts and creditsE during the course of the transactions themsel"es Transactions then ap, page3)66 Page )6% pear incremental; they appear to propagate more transactions !nmediated e.changes typify parent and child ties or ties >ith AinsfolA based on asymmetry and dependence, source and product These transactions appear nonincremental, yet there is a creati"e Dproducti"eE element to them, namely, the possibility of Ain implanting their o>n condition in others >ho thus come to substitute for them They propagate more Ainship @ne might encapsulate these different techniGues or practices of obJectification in the anthropological contrast bet>een generali6ed and restricted e.change 7o>e"er, as 5amon D*$&'E says, appearances are decepti"e The former techniGue seems to create endless potential for ne> relationships, for e.panding the circle of partnerships before it comes bacA to oneself, e"inced in the replication of same,se. ties ;ut in the end liAe does produce liAemen only create more men, more partners 5espite the inflation of particular, Ainship,deri"ed "alues and loyalties to a collecti"e DgroupE dimension, ultimately speaAing, >omen and men remain locAed in the restricted oscillation of debts bet>een donors and recipients The latter techniGue appears to engage people in an e"erlasting round of cross,se. substitutions, al>ays reproducing the same relations, parents producing children >ho >ill become parents ;ut in the short term, it transforms one set of identities into others, creating ne> social persons, children >ho are not their parents 5espite the collecti"i6ation of Ainship transactions, pro.imately speaAing, men and >omen are locAed into the nonre"ersible displacement of each generation by its successor We might put it that people thereby borro> these t>o practices as metaphors for each other, so that each in fact participates in the otherFs form page3)6% Page )6&

*' #ause and +ffect There is a final concreteness to be discarded in approaching Melanesian societies from the "ie>point of Western2+uropean ones To concentrate on the obJectifications of Melanesian cultures appears to eliminate subJecti"ity The acting agent is seemingly not reGuired in my e.planation of ho> people manage their affairsand 4 >rite as though cultures proceed independently >ith their reifications, persons appearing only as the refle. of relationships 4n fact, the indi"idual subJect has been present in my account all along; she2he Just does not taAe the shape >e are used to seeing 9ocating The Agent 9eenhardt D*$%$ N*$1%OE faced this problem in /e> #aledonia With brilliance he charts the e.tent to >hich persons appear through their relationships ;ut then at their center all he sees is emptiness As he analy6es local symboli6ation, the body is simply a support for the li"ing being DFpersonageFE; it has an indi"iduating effect, but it is not other>ise a source of identity 7e disco"ered that bodies >ere interchangeable; they act as replicas of one another, by >hich he meant 4 thinA both that liAe persons are replicated and that those differentiated from a particular ego elicit its different roles A li"ing entity D.amoE FF.no#s himself only by the relationships he maintains >ith others 7e e.ists only insofar as he acts his role in the course of his relationshipsL

page3)6& Page )6$ D*$%$:*(0, my emphasisE -igure 0A is a diagram dra>n by 9eenhardt of the .amo as the center of a fan of such relationships, e"ery other .amo being replicas of his o>n body L4n the midst of these rays, an empty space is circumscribed by the points of departure for relationshipsL D9eenhardt *$%$:*(0E We cannot call this space a self, he argues: Their social reality is not in their body but in this empty place >here they ha"e their names and >hich corresponds to a relationship ;ut no name can co"er the >hole person The #anaGue N#aledonianO is obliged to ha"e a different name for e"ery domain >hich in"ol"es his person in "arious relationships and participations 4n all this, he is una>are of himself; he is the empty space enclosed by the circle of aFs N-ig 0AO D*$%$:*(1, *(6E @ne relationship is al>ays, as he adduced, a metamorphosis of another :et his mistaAe >as to concei"e of a center at all The center is >here the t>entieth,century Western imagination puts the self, the personality, the ego -or the FpersonF in this latter day Western "ie> is an agent, a subJect, the author of thought and action, and thus Fat the centerF of relationships Some of the conceptual dilemmas into >hich this configuration leads >ere rehearsed in part * 4t has shaped our cultural obsession >ith the e.tent to >hich human subJects are actors >ho create relationships or act rather as the precipitation of relationships; this obsession fuels the indi"idual2society dichotomy >ith >hich 4 began The image of the acti"e agent at the creati"e or created center of relations is missing from my e.planations 4n the Western "ie> an e.planation consists of bringing social facts and e"ents into relationship >ith one another +.planation models the organi6ation it describes And such a resultant FstructureF or FsystemF in being authored by its in"entor must also sho>, >e suppose, its effects upon the li"ing subJect in the >orld The in"entor then demonstrates the reality of the hypothesi6ed structure or system through peopleFs li"ing participation in it as subJects And because >e can abstract subJects as indi"iduals, the e.planation often appears concrete enough, despite its ha"ing to cede all the infinities of Fle"elsF of consciousness or FdomainsF of action and the cumbersome imagery of structuration Social science ne"er settles in fact on any single metaphor Whether systems and structures are liAe buildings, maps, engines, bodies themsel"es, or e"en liAe minds that dro>n in their o>n thresholds of a>areness, 9eenhardtFs star shaped configuration carries the one and same presumption: li"ing >ithin, guided by, dri"ing, functioning as, or Ano>ing through these structures of relation, page3)6$ Page )%'

-ig 0 T>o 5iagrams page3)%' Page )%* ships must be the indi"idual subJect 4n honesty, 9eenhardt could not find a corresponding entity on /e> #aledonia 4 suggest that this upside do>n conclusion be turned right side uphis diagram >as >rong * Possibly it is fortuitous that 9eenhardtFs translator used the term FsupportF for the >ay the Melanesians in his analysis thinA of the body; the term recalls ;attagliaFs discussion of Sabarl ideas about the interconnection of relations Sabarl imagine that it is relationships that FsupportF a person Dsee pp *%)*%0E ;ut only certain relationships are so described; others are held to FcompleteF a person #onseGuently, any one type of relationship is to be contrasted >ith and thus seen from the "ie>point of another The same is true for the

internal construction of social relations themsel"es PeopleFs positioning >ith respect to one another entails each party percei"ing the relationship simultaneously from its o>n and the otherFs point of "ie> This perception is construed as a specific capacity that the person has >ithin -or these, in turn, are metaphors, >ith their o>n cumbersome reifications They underlie, for instance, the so,called dualism of Melanesian cultures 4magining that the >orld is di"ided into Ft>o Ainds ofF things, relations, times, or >hate"er Dp *&&E, is to imagine the person from t>o different "antage points The clan that di"ides its members into t>o types of agnatesmales and femalesis also percei"ing itself >ith respect to >hat its marriage partners >ill e.tract from it The >oman >ho berates a child for taAing s>eet potatoes from her gro>ing garden percei"es her care of the plants in relation to the claims she must satisfy at a later point; time is sliced into before and after -rom our point of "ie>, these are symbolic constructs; from the Melanesian point of "ie> they are recipes for social action They supply moti"ation Percei"ing anotherFs "ie>point is also an anticipation of it; and people fore"er regard themsel"es as mo"ing from one position to another A >ife does not, of course, become the husband >hose claims she has in mind; but she anticipates the moment at >hich she >ill har"est the tubers, and that >hat gre> because of her e.clusi"e nurture of them >ill be consumed as the products of their Joint >orA This transformation in "ie>, >e might say that she gre> the s>eet potatoes FforF her husband, since his >orA in fact completes hers Sabarl gi"e us a diagram Din fig 0;E, a picture of relationships liAe Joints or elbo>s, graphically concei"ed as the angle that an a. blade maAes to its shaft D;attaglia *$&0a:)$6E The a., and particularly the direction in >hich the blade points, is compared to the prestations DsegaiyaE that culminate at mortuary ceremonies in acAno>ledgment page3)%* Page )%) of the support gi"en to a person o"er his or her life by his or her FfatherF Da son or daughter of the fatherFs sisterE The person >ho benefits and consumes the food and other gifts gi"en by the father is the pi"ot for these e.changes: in his or her name food and "aluables are returned to the fatherFs side The return is finally celebrated at the personFs death, >hen life is completed -rom the point of "ie> of his2her fatherFs Ain, the FchildF is called an Felbo>F, the turning point at >hich "aluable obJects that ha"e mo"ed a>ay from the "illage come bacA again D;attaglia *$&0:)$%; *$&(:10'E ) The child acts as an agent on their behalf; its shape is an angle encompassing t>o directions The acting subJect or agent is construed in these systems as a pi"ot of relationships 4 do not mean one >ho is an assemblage of or the locus of relationshipsthat is the FpersonF, the form of their obJectification ;y agent, 4 mean one >ho from his or her o#n vantage point acts #ith another/s in mind An agent appears as the turning point of relations, able to metamorphose one Aind of person into another, a transformer Thus from the Sabarl FfatherFsF "ie>point it is the FchildF >ho in relation to him or her is the turning point >hereby transactions >ith affines become transformed into benefit for Ain ;y his or her o>n gifts the FfatherF does, of course, compel the child to bring the transformation about An agent is one >ho acts >ith another in mind, and that other may in fact coerce the agent into so acting A 7agen >oman is compelled to har"est her tubers for her husband ;ut it >ould be a misconstruction to read this as the husbandFs superior po>ers, an aggrandi6ed subJecti"ity o"erriding that of the >ifeFs 4n the commodity "ie>, it is true, one subJect acts upon another as its obJect 7ere, 4 suggest, in the corresponding relation one subJect acts >ith another subJect in mind @ne al>ays acts so to speaA Fon behalf ofF another Dcompare p *61E, though the +nglish phrase has misleadingly positi"e o"ertones The obJect or outcome is their relationship, the effect of their interaction ;ut the t>o subJects are not isomorphic 4f the >ife is an agent, the one >ho acts, then her husband in this instance is the cause of her acting, though not himself acti"e 4t is simply in reference to him that the >ife acts That is the coercion While this >ill ser"e as a general description of Melanesian agency, 4 ha"e deri"ed it from those e.aggerated forms of acti"ity made "isible in the course of public ceremonial and ritual, as >ith the Sabarl mortuary e.changes Many such agents ha"e appeared in my account: the Gimi >ife >ho from the husbandFs point of "ie> must turn her relation, page3)%) Page )%0

ship >ith her father into one >ith her childFs father; the Trobriand father >ho from his >ifeFs brotherFs point of "ie> releases parallel flo>s of male and female >ealth; the Sambia sisterFs husband >ho acti"ates both his >ife and his >ifeFs brother; the 7agen mother >ho from the "ie>point of her natal clan turns her relationship >ith her husband into >ealth for it What decei"es us perhaps Dsee chap (E is the "ery fact that agents do not cause their o>n actions; they are not the authors of their o>n acts They simply do them Agency and cause are split There is a distinction then bet>een a cause and an agent: a cause e.ists as a single reference point for the agent, in the same >ay as the effect of a relationship e.ists as a single outcome The cause is the FpersonF >ith >hom the agentFs relationship is to be transformed, a unitary reference point for her or his acts The one >ho is regarded as acting, ho>e"er, is the one >ho in taAing account of the causethe reason for actingalso acts for him or herself The agentFs position is intrinsically multiple The tubers may be for the husband, but it is Guite emphatically the >ife >ho should and does har"est them The outcome is the food he >ill consume, but the acti"ity she does of and for herself The action remains hers To e.pound upon this point, 4 return to material that has already been presented The term person, >hich 4 ha"e used so freely in my account, must no> be unco"ered and differentiated into its o>n t>o types 4 therefore introduce a distinction bet>een FpersonF and FagentF The person is construed from the "antage points of the relations that constitute him or her; she or he obJectifies and is thus re"ealed in those relations The agent is construed as the one >ho acts because of those relationships and is re"ealed in his or her actions 4f a person is an agent seen from the point of "ie> of her or his relations >ith others, the agent is the person >ho has taAen action >ith those relations in "ie> 4n this, the agent constitutes a FselfF A corollary is that causing another to act is not to be understood simply as the manifestation of a po>er that some ha"e o"er others in particular conte.ts There is nothing contingent about it The separation bet>een agent and the person >ho is the cause of his or her acts is systemic, and go"erns the Melanesian perception of action To act as oneFs o>n cause becomes an inno"ation on this con"ention Gi"en that persons are reified as t>o Ainds, through the aesthetics of gender >omen conseGuently appear as the cause of menFs actions, and men as the cause of >omenFs Persons and agents thus occupy positions defined by different "antage points The one and the same figure is both an obJect of the regard of page3)%0 Page )%1 others Da personE and one >ho taAes action as him or herself on behalf of these others Dan agentE The person obJectifies a multiple relationship but from the "ie>point of the agent is the FoneF reference point >ith respect to >hom action is taAen, for the other reference point is her or himself The agentFs social position is thus a multiple one, constituted in the different directions in >hich he or she is faced, but his or her conseGuent acts are singular +ach act is FoneF act 0 This last perception is the single most significant metaphysical basis for the understanding of Melanesian relations The Particular And The #ollecti"e The elbo> image is suggesti"e in another regard -rom the "ie> of the agent, the persons2relations >ith reference to >hom she or he acts ha"e a taAen,for,granted status They are already there, one might say As 4 ha"e construed Melanesian ideas, the person is re"ealed in the conte.t of relationships, for the person re"eals the relationships that compose him or her as an inherently multiple construct The plural or composite nature of the relations that maAe up peopleFs interactions is thus assumed ;ut in chapter * 4 suggested that plurality taAes t>o forms 4n truth, one of these is assumed, and the other is not 4t is consonant >ith my argument about the concealed con"entions of reification that the plurality taAen for granted is that of the duothe dyadic structure of the relationship bet>een agent and the cause of the agentFs acting The e.ternali6ing duality of direction in >hich peopleFs minds are turned, to>ard themsel"es and to>ard others, is an a.iomatic conte.t for action As >e ha"e seen this precipitates not a dialectic bet>een FselfF and FotherF but a self >ho in acting >ith respect to another alters the relations >ithin >hich she or he is embedded #onseGuently the effects of her or his actions may be seen in the bodies of t#o other persons T>o relationships are in"ol"ed, >ith the agent as pi"ot; they form, >e might say, an analogous pair This follo>s from the fact that as a person the agent is al>ays socially distinct from the cause; and in acting for or because of the cause also acts >ith reference to other causes The >ife >ho gro>s food for her husband does so FherselfF because she is separated from him by her o>n ties >ith her natal Ain Thus she acts >ith reference to Ft>o Ainds ofF menher spouse and her siblings 4n short, an agent >ho acts >ith one person in mind is also acting >ith another in mind @ne might call the resultant angle of perspecti"e a recursi"e duality

The point is that it is taAen for page3)%1 Page )%( granted that actions proceed >ithin a dually constructed e.ternal conte.t of this Aind The plurality >hich is not taAen for granted is that 4 ha"e called Fcollecti"eF, homomorphic, the plurality that may e"ince itself homologously in singular form This is the condition of unity, and it has to be achie"ed @nly under the condition of unity can the person or group then appear as a composite microcosm of social relations !nity in turn hinges on agency: the agent re"eals the unity for Das 4 shall argueE it is acts >hich unify The singular must also be seen >ith respect to the t>o forms out of >hich unity is composedthe multiple or composite person and the di"idual 7ere >hat is taAen for granted are the multiple e.ternal relations in >hich a person is embedded, for the focus of attention is their internal manifestation in a dual form What has to be staged is the ability to shed half the dual form: to be concrete, unity is achie"ed by detaching or eliminating an opposite se. part The propositions about plurality and singularity can be dra>n as e.ternal and internal analogues of one another Nfig 1O ;ut liAe 9eenhardtFs, this too is the >rong diagram 4n chapter * 4 used the terms singular and plural to retain contact >ith Western metaphors of society and indi"idual -inally, ho>e"er, they are misleading, for the diagram creates the >rong dimensions, the nominali6ing Gualifiers suggesting that at issue are a collection of attributes @ne has to mo"e to the further position, that there is no intrinsic difference bet>een Fthe singularF and Fthe pluralF There is, ho>e"er, a crucial difference bet>een the "ie>points of the FoneF agent and the Ft>oF directions in >hich he or she faces 8ather than lines and arro>s bet>een attributes >e should instead be thinAing of the relationship bet>een acts and the conte.ts of action 4t is acts >hich taAe a singular form, and they produce this against a taAen, for,granted bacAground of relationships The corollary is that the agent acts in the .no#ledge of his or her o#n constitution as a person in the regard of others and indeed fabricates that regard DobJectifying her or himselfE in acti"ating the relationship An agent may Ano> her or himself as a person in the form of a di"idual, potentially one of a pair, or may Ano> him or herself as a composite microcosm, potentially bounded as a unit The outcome of her or his singular action is in the one case sociality of a particular and in the other of a collecti"e nature @"er time, particular relations must al>ays substitute for one another, >hereas collecti"e relations replicate one another The one action is so page3)%( Page )%6

-ig 1 Singular and Plural +.panded: * Multiple internal relations among the members of the body Da FgroupFE ) +ncounter >ith a specific social other: another group, as partner, ally, etc The conte.t for D(E 0 The >hole spectrum of relations >hich the person obJectifies and also in that sense contains >ithin The conte.t for D6E in that the other of a pair must already be e.ternal 1 The reduction of the multiplicity of e.ternal relations to an image of internal duality, e g , relations >ith motherFs Ain, fatherFs Ain The one schema can be superimposed upon the other When >e do this Dconflating plural and singularE, the moti"ating opposition emerges as that bet>een unity and duality conte.tuali6ed as to lead to the creation of >hat 4 call Ainship; the other is not &he unifying act1 #auses are single points of reference for the agent >ho is a pi"ot, an elbo> combining >ithin him or herself multiple perspecti"es ;ut the agent reduces that multiplicity to a unity in the actions she or he taAes Thus the agent is re"ealed as a single conduit, page3)%6 Page )%% the one of a pair to >hom action is credited This singleness of action in turn establishes its reference points, for he or she then elicits the actions of others in reference to his or her single self and gi"es those causes DFpersonsFE their other, multiple character 4t is the one figure of the Trobriand father >ho releases the dual flo> of male and female "aluables and the one figure of the Gimi mother in >hich many men meet The elbo> of relationships is single, 4 argue, )ecause he or she is the one >ho taAes action Action has a unity, as ;iersacA describes for Paiela obser"ations on peopleFs beha"ior She >rites that Paiela social transitions reGuire

the operation of t>o principles: a principle of binary opposition >hereby a set of alternati"es is created, but also a principle of selection that permits one or the other alternati"e to become current, thereby creating temporal discontinuities D*$&):)((E 5oing an act is such a selecti"e process Whether imagined as choosing from a pair of alternati"es or choosing a single path out of many, 1 the suppression of multiple possibilities in fa"or of one maAes relationships "isible through the capacity of the self to acti"ate them At any point, action appears directed to>ards one specific relationship Dthe eliciting partnerE, >hich becomes the cause of the action itself And it can only be done in one Aind of >ay 4t is done either >ell or badly D;iersacA *$&1E The criteria that 4 ha"e been calling aesthetic >ith regard to form can also be called moral: the self is Judged by the >ay it acti"ates its relationships An action implies an agent #on"ersely, for the agent to FappearF action must taAe a singular form Thus a collecti"ity of men >ishing to act to common purpose must appear as Fone manF @nly thus do they declare themsel"es agents The cause for their ha"ing to act may lie in the minds of their e.change partners or in the necessity for marriage, but the action is theirs !nity is communicated, displayed, contri"ed, as it is in a performance We may also taAe performance as a unified set of e"ents, moti"ated by singleness of purpose and body @riented as participants are to others, they celebrate their o>n actions, and thus also their capacity for action +"ents, acts, performances are, then, presented in the singular; they both define and are defined by a single point in time +ach e"ent thus has a historical specificity to it +ach e"ent freshly transforms the multiple causes for it taAing place into the single occasion of it ha"ing done page3)%% Page )%& so The occasion is fi.ed by the irre"ersibility of its momentary aesthetic impact ( 9e8oy D*$%$:)'6E describes this "i"idly for a <e>a pig,Aill 9et us suppose, along >ith the <e>a, that someone comes and obser"es from the sidelines 7e is perhaps a "isitor from another "illage >ho has come to recei"e a shell or some porA /o>, ho>e"er, he scrutini6es the pig Aillers as they maAe their ceremonial gifts of shells and porA 7is glance unifies them, and in his "ie> they constitute a >hole This is his "alue: each pig Ailler can, by putting himself in the spectatorFs place, see himself as a member of a unified group 9ong before the "isitor arri"es on the scene, therefore, local pig Aillers anticipate his reactions What >ill he thinA if he sees them maAe a bad Job of itM 4n these terms >e ha"e to understand the Melanesian significance gi"en to maternity: >omen gi"e e"idence of their o>n agency, as >ell as those of others, through the e"ent of childbirth and the constituti"e singleness of their o>n bodies The di"erse composition of these bodies, the gender of the substances or >ho coerced them to gi"e birth are all irrele"ant to the act itself 4ndeed, in many Melanesian societies, its unity is e.aggerated by the motherFs isolation and seclusion at the time The act of birth is regarded as a particular historical e"ent 8elations merely appear as the causes of such e"ents -or the relations are al>ays there; >hat gi"es the e"ent its uniGue character is ho> >ell or in >hat manner a particular relationship is made Fto appearF on that occasion That e"aluation defines the occasion The e"ent thus submits the self, the agent, to scrutiny in its capacity as a person from the "antage of another and thus subJects it to aesthetic Judgement This is another >ay of putting the process Wagner calls analogic Ainship D*$%%aE 8elations DpersonsE are analogues of one another9eenhardtFs replication of bodies ;ut peopleFs actions turn them into uniGue e"ents so that one relation may also displace another They become particulari6ed -rom the agentFs point of "ie>, her or his unity is e"inced in action taAen This is a generali6ed condition, encountered in chapter ( as Dindi"isibleE Fpo>erF 4t is the po>er to act that is indi"isible -urthermore, the agent can, so to speaA, recall this generali6ed capacity on future occasions: it is his or her o>n capacity that has been re"ealed ;ut from the point of "ie> of >hat caused the agent to act, the performance at that moment >as a particular and irre"ersible e"ent The agent acted in relation to a specific other The character of the other pro"ides the conte.t that determines >hether the agent percei"es her or himself as effecti"e in a di"idual or multiple mode page3)%&

Page )%$ Where the other already e.ists in prior form, its differentiation from the agent is taAen for granted in the duality of an agentFs orientation As a >oman, a mother Ano>s she has the capacity to gi"e birth; but as a >ife, the >oman Ano>s she ga"e birth on this occasion because of the particular actions of her husband The acti"ation of specific relations on each occasion means that the agentFs capacity is thereby particulari6ed /ot in this sense replicated, it is elicited only >ith respect to a particular other, and the ensuing relationship thus taAes a dual or cross,se. form 4 use a Ainship e.ample, for it is such relations 4 >ould define as Ain,based The agent acts to differentiate and maAe these relations FappearF, but the form >hich the differentiation taAes is already gi"en As a >ife a >oman can only act as a >ife; other>ise she ceases to FbeF one There is a prioriti6ation to the relations that the agent can in this sense only reenact 4t goes >ithout saying that such prior differentiation is not FinnateF but is al>ays regarded as the result of earlier, specific differentiating acts DWagner *$%%a:6)%E Their effect is at once cumulati"e and substituti"ea constant displacement of particular relations by further particular relations DFmore AinshipFE -or a personFs capacity is particulari6ed or indi"iduali6ed DGillison in pressE, re"ealed as agency, by the particularity of pre"ious acts Prioriti6ation may also ha"e contingent rather than cumulati"e effect The agentFs capacity remains generali6ed and appears replicable; it creates same,se. relations, elicited by similar or liAe others 7o>e"er the e.ercise of the capacity itself particulari6es and maAes relationships 4n doing so, the constituti"e differentiation is rendered unpredictable There is Dparado.ically for usE no determinate prioriti6ation to the histories of intergroup relations, for instance The instruments of their historical differentiation>arfare, competiti"e e.change, business enterprises, intriguesare multiple and di"erse, and are not gi"en in ad"ance #onseGuently, anything may happen This is the character of collecti"e performances that occur in political conte.ts, creating the uniGue reno>n of clans, canoes, or leaders in relation to others liAe them 6 4t is in their particular historici6ed form Dall >ith their o>n historiesE that such entities are analogues of one another 4ndeed, to be an analogue could be said to be their aimgroups compete, as anthropologists ha"e long noted De g , 8eay *$($; -orge *$%)E to be eGual >ith one another 4n other >ords, one must disaggregate the impact of peopleFs interactions >ith reference to temporality, >hether particular relations are taAen as prior to an act or as a conseGuence of it 4 remind the reader, page3)%$ Page )&' ho>e"er, that the problem of the anticipated outcome is the collapse of cause and effect seGuencing itself, and 4 shall return to the point Mean>hile, note that the "erbal in"ersions through >hich my description has proceeded deri"e both from the interrelationship bet>een +nglish and Melanesian, so to speaA, and from the conclusion of the last chapter about the manner in >hich forms participate in one another; it is after all in +nglish no parado. to talA about the Ainship aspect of politics or the politici6ation of domestic relations That my argument pi"ots on these t>o concepts deri"es in turn partly from the 7agen,centric nature of the original problematic but also from the discussion in part * about the t>o types of sociality &he t#o times of sociality1 4 ha"e emphasi6ed the substituti"e effect of the cross,se. claims by >hich one agent e.tracts >hat is o>ed him or her, that is, belongs to her or his relation >ith the person in Guestion Substitution, unliAe replication, can only taAe place once #onseGuently, e.traction Dor productionE is al>ays a particular e"ent An e.traction once effected fi.es the parties in an asymmetric relation >ith one another 7o>e"er many times it is reenacted in gift e.change or in further e.tractions, that historic shift can only be reenacted in the conte.t of ha"ing happened 4t >as argued earlier that the motherFs social identity causes things in her care to gro> That identity is made o"ert by the e"ents of gift e.changes and by the relationship bet>een her >orA and her husbandFs !nder patrilineal regimes, a >oman may be gro>ing >ithin her a fetus that comes in part from her husbandFs clan and be nourishing it, as she >ill >hen the child is born, >ith food produced by her >orA on the husbandFs land Matrilineal regimes emphasi6e different constellations of significant social others ;ut in either case, these particulari6ing, cross,se. relations lie beyond her body >hich can thus be concei"ed, liAe a collecti"ity, as FoneF Gro>th, therefore, has a retrospecti"e character to it 4t is in anticipation of the separation of gro>n thing from gro>er that the thing so gro>s, for it is only Ano>n to ha"e done so after the e"ent This recursi"e "ie> of time is highly rele"ant to my general argument

The condition that remains hidden and enclosed, >hether >ithin a single or plural collecti"ity, is atemporal 4t is the inert outcome of a pre"ious seGuence of e"ents 4t e.ists in turn in contrast to the anticipated re"elation >hich must, in mobili6ing e.ternal relations, itself al>ays taAe the form of a single, temporali6ed e"ent Agents stage e"ents, page3)&' Page )&* bringing about an irre"ersible seGuence, thereby maAing their relations >ith particular others appear Thus a husband appears as the cause of a >ife gi"ing birth Thus the indi"iduating effect of Melanesian Ainship: it is the act that indi"iduates -rom the "ie>point of the one >ho causes another to act, he or she has elicited a general capacity ;ut the general capacity is manifested in a particular >ay: from the "ie>point of the one >ho acts, the act is something only he or she can do Moreo"er, each act appears in a uniGue form because it is differentiated from any other by its aesthetic effect The Guality of the performance, the child born ali"e and >ell, the things it produces, marA the point in time at >hich it occurred What gi"es Ainship relations their FparticularF cast, then, is time The >ay in >hich metaphors participate in one another might suggest that e"ery such eGuation e.ists simultaneously; but that is merely the "ertigo of a narrati"e form that has to lay out the interconnections bet>een images -or the obser"er, e"erything seems implicated in e"erything else ;ut for the performers the >hole point about performati"e seGuence is the seGuence Actors mo"e from one position to another More than that, their energies and efforts are reGuired to effect transition Thus an anticipated effect is only realized as a result of action; >ealth obJects >ill only flo> bet>een e.change partners if each man taAes action in relation to the other; and the children contained in the transmission of semen >ill only be born >hen the right action is taAen >ith the right se.ual partner 4ndeed, in the Sambia case >e are told ho> important seGuencing is: an older male must al>ays play the part of inseminator Din relation to both boys and >omenE, and no temporal re"ersal of the roles is permissible D7erdt *$&1b:*&&E Age Aeeps apart the sisterFs husband and >ifeFs brother; under the rubric of sister e.change these might other>ise be categorically fused Ddirect,sister e.change is al>ays a possibility, see 7erdt *$&*:10E 4t is important that for the particular performer, for the indi"idual agent, the seGuencing is right, that his or her o>n inseminator is unambiguously defined 4t is thus incumbent upon agents to Aeep the timing of their performances in order We might regard Ainship relations as the distillation of indi"idual acts in a necessary rather than contingent seGuence 4t is those acts that ha"e produced this child of these parents, from this affinal tie, and so on They ha"e a particular nature to them because in Ain terms each person is a microcosm of relations as they ha"e been historically acti"ated through indi"idual agents The e"idence for this lies in the shape page3)&* Page )&) that persons assume: their minds and bodies are thoroughly particular registers of the agentsF successes and failures and of the degree to >hich others ha"e properly acti"ated their o>n relations 7ealth, stature, inclinations, feelingsall document specific action The person as a Ains,man or ,>oman, then, is the outcome of e"ent and performance 5ependency in Ain relations could thus be described as a priority of form: one relationship DpersonE must e.ist before another can De g , p )('E FParentsF are a prior form of FchildrenF As >e ha"e seen, differentiations can be taAen for granted only as the outcomes of the particulari6ing actions of others Those actions in turn lay the irre"ersible basis for the future acts that >ill substitute for them % The problem of time posed by the giftFs anticipated outcome, that is, by the obJectification of relations, is sol"ed by Ainship, that is, by the indi"iduali6ation of the subJect or agent Through the singularity of his or her action, an agent Aeeps cause and effect apart An anticipated outcome means that relations must e.ist before they can be reali6ed <inship places e"ents in seGuence, organi6ing the appearance of one specific form out of another, recording these seGuences in the bodies of particular persons The indi"idual is created in the fact that these seGuencesin the order they occurred, and in the success >ith >hich they occurredare attributed to his or her moti"e in acting in one >ay rather than another @ne beha"es either as a senior or Junior, either as a mother or a daughter The Findi"idualF is thus temporali6ed in the image of body,time ;irth, maturation, death, decay record the history of the agentFs o>n moti"es and the moti"es of others The processes become highly particulari6ed by "irtue of appearing as a conseGuence of prior actions and thus as a conseGuence of peopleFs cumulati"e dealings >ith one another

(isaggregating the domestic domain1 The Melanesian di"ision of labor bet>een husband and >ife, seen from the point of "ie> of one party acting for the other, inaugurates a set of particular relations focused on the household The household appears heterogeneously based 4t is constituted on dependency relations bet>een noneGuals, by contrast >ith those constructions of clanship >here members are seen as replicating one another, a possibility that allo>s enumeration and the measurement of respecti"e strengths 8elations >ithin the household pattern the >hole field of indi"iduated Ainship connections established through marriage and the maintenance of ties >ith affines and patrilateral2matrilateral others: they can ne"er achie"e such homogeneity 4t seems page3)&) Page )&0 helpful to continue to refer, as in pre"ious chapters, to Fdomestic AinshipF, meaning this >hole configuration of FparticularF relations ;ut if 4 do so at this Juncture, it is to introduce a distinction bet>een acti"ities often taAen together as a.iomatically domestic in nature and a.iomatically the pro"ince of >omen There are conte.ts in >hich the acts of feeding are separated from the acts of gro>ing Dchap $E There are also conte.ts in >hich it is analytically illuminating to separate nurture, under >hich >e might include both feeding and gro>ing, from the act of gi"ing birth D@ne could, of course, disaggregate further, for e"ery FactF is itself composed of a seGuence of acts, in the same >ay as one can continually disaggregate the gender symbolism of any specific gender symbol E 4 taAe the latter separation as a summari6ing contrast of some salience in the >ay 4 thinA Melanesians assemble their ideas of >omen and men 4n anthropological analysis, these t>o acti"ities are often merged under the umbrella rubric of domesticity To do so in the case of Melanesian constructs of maternity and paternity is to obscure the non.inship character of certain relations Westerners might other>ise put at the heart of the Fdomestic domainF #hildbirth is certainly constituted as a uniGue, nonreplicable e"ent 4t is a singular and historical act, maAing a specific relationship Dbet>een her and others, and not least the childE out of the motherFs general capacities -or she becomes an agent acti"ated by a particular cause seen to lie prior and e.ternal to her Dthe fatherFs e.changes, en"eloping clan land, or a brother compelling her husband to prepare herE #hildbirth acti"ates Ainship 7o>e"er, it is by contrast that the motherFs nurturing of her child, or her crops, may be construed to e"ince instead a general capacity in relation to a liAe other Dplants, the unborn childE that she thereby internali6es as FpartF of herself 7er capacity inheres as a general condition in that other And these are the same,se. acts of gro>th that >ere described in chapters & and $hence >hat is in +nglish the parado. that until it is born or har"ested the gro>ing thing >ithin her in effect gro>s her Gro>er and gro>n are unified in >hat could be called a Fcollecti"eF manner: liAe political relations, their relations are of a different order from those of domestic Ainship 4nto this conte.t 4 >ould put 7ighlandersF remarAs on the apparent spontaneity of female gro>th @ur mistaAe is to see this as a comment on a natural property that >omen liAe plants or animals ha"e >ithin themsel"es & The early ethnographers claimed that it >as because >omen >ere seen to gro> naturally, men had to imitate them ;ut in page3)&0 Page )&1 stressing the apparently unassisted character of such gro>th, the claims mistaAenly suppose 7ighlanders see the process as beyond rather than constituted by human effort -emale or maternal gro>th is as contri"ed or as uncontri"ed as the propagation of subclans or the enlargement of menFs names Spontaneity presents an image of potential agency, of the ability to taAe unassisted action, precisely because the cause appears particular and e.ternal to the generali6ed capacities of the person2body The actor becomes constituted as her o>n reference point; the >oman Gua >oman acting >ith another in mind also acts from a position of her o>n At the center of >omenFs acti"ities, therefore, >ithin the Fdomestic domainF so,called, >omenFs replication of same,se. relations is analogous to menFs collecti"e politics D4 >rite men and >omen here by con"ention The same holds, of course, for the nurturant father in the matrilineal Massim: at the heart of lineage relations is the father,child bond E WomenFs capacities for gro>th are replicable, generali6ed; their care of crops and their gro>ing of the child >ithin are nonspecific acti"ities The e.ercise of that capacity, as in the case of menFs political interactions, is to maAe the resultant relationship Dbet>een gro>er and gro>nE a particular one ;ut that is not "isible until it appears in the form of its effect: only the producti"e Fe"entF of har"esting or childbirth >ill re"eal the relationship

The one process leads into the other ;ut it is e.actly time that separates them, and >e should taAe notice of this temporality 8ather than conflating the different times of maternal gro>th and parturition, it is helpful in understanding the Melanesian "ie> to consider >omenFs bodies as e"incing in themsel"es an alternation bet>een the t>o types of sociality, the collecti"e and the particular The implication is that >e must therefore stop thinAing of >omenFs caretaAing roles as a.iomatically indicati"e of domestic Ainship: they also e"ince a collecti"e and generali6ed capacity Women, liAe men, subseGuently engage in particular DAinshipE relations >ith others through their o>n cross,se. ties 4t becomes unnecessary to conclude, as @rtner and Whitehead D*$&*: %&E do in gender terms FFthat the sphere of social acti"ity predominantly associated >ith males encompasses the sphere predominantly associated >ith females and is, for that reason, culturally accorded higher "alue NMenO control the larger social operation >hile >omenFs social hori6ons are narro>ed to the small range of closely related Ain and their immediate needs L 4 appear to ha"e been party to the conclusion DM Strathern *$&*aE ;ut as 4 >ould formulate it no>, it is not page3)&1 Page )&( that a male sphere permanently encloses a female one There are no spheres in that sense: encompassment is relati"e There are positions from >hich people act And >omen as much as men are able to construct themsel"es as reference points for their o>n acts They are not subsumed under Ainship relations; rather, they eGually create and enter into Ainship relations at particular moments 4t also becomes absurd to thinA diagrammatically of the political and domestic domains as the internal and e.ternal aspects of a structure Melanesian clanship, for instance, does not represent an e.teriori6ation of domestic Ainship, a Jural order, a higher sociality 4t is not a "alidating e.ternali6ation of domestic authority, >hich becomes thereby sanctioned, as -ortes D*$6$E >ould ha"e it Dsee chap 1, n *'E @n the contrary, the sphere of relations 4 ha"e called collecti"e, >ith their contingent character, may be considered amoral by comparison >ith the necessary morality of domestic Ainship 4 >ould, of course, include the fact of >omenFs generali6ed capacities as eGually amoral 4n the conte.t of domestic Ainship, constraints on action come from the e.tent to >hich persons are construed as immediately "ulnerable to and immediately able to benefit from one anotherFs e.ploits and intentions, and this is partly a result of the cumulati"e prioriti6ation of peopleFs acts The constraints are in"ested in the particularity of the relations themsel"es and their cause and effect seGuencing The resultant asymmetries may, as >e ha"e seen, be metaphorically captured in the interests of collecti"e relations 4nitiation cults blo> up unmediated effecti"eness to collecti"e proportions, participantsF bodies becoming the indi"idual sites of alteration, >ith specific acts bet>een particular seniors and Juniors creating relations of dependency bet>een them #eremonial e.change appropriates emotional states as attributes of >hole social units, so that clans collecti"ely impinge upon one another, their mutual dependency contrasting >ith the independence each also claims ;ut all this is, so to speaA, a borro>ed morality ;asically, menFs impingement on liAe others celebrates a homogeneous identity >hich >orAs by o"ercoming or resisting the moral basis of heterogeneous domestic dependencies 7ence the organi6ation of clan e"ents becomes an achie"ement and, in 9edermanFs Din pressE obser"ation for Mendi, Lrepresents a hegemonic moment L Pari passu the same may be said of the act of nurture -rom the point of "ie> of menFs acti"ities, neither politics nor ritual constitute a normati"e domain that abstracts and adJudicates "alues e.isting else>here; in transforming domestic Ainship, collecti"e rela, page3)&( Page )&6 tions are also oriented to>ards its reproduction ;ut they deploy an aesthetic mode that necessarily promotes not a congruent but an alternative set of "alues 7arrison maAes this point in relation to religion: representations in myth and ritual promote an FaJuralF sociality D*$&1:1'*E $ 7is obser"ations >ere prompted by a study of A"atip, in the SepiA 8i"er area, and by Tu6inFs >orA on 4lahita Arapesh to the north Tu6inFs concern >ith ritual "iolence led him to note that the Lfelicity of domestic relations must constantly contend >ith ritual prescriptions designed specifically to undermine marital and filial attachment L Actors ha"e Lto pay the emotional cost of li"ing by t>o contradictory, affecti"ely loaded codes of conductL: Ldomestic ethos radically contradicts its ritual counterpartFF D*$&):0(*, 0()E @ne may compare :oungFs D*$&0:)6)E account of the antinomy in "alues that

leads to Lcompeting "isionsL of <alauna society on Goodenough 4sland in the Massim 7arrison suggests rather that at A"atip Lthe dilemma is not bet>een irreconcilable moral codes, but lies in the fact that religion and morality are distinct and embody "alues of a different orderL D*$&(:**%E A"atip people, 7arrison argues, see themsel"es as composed of both FunderstandingF and FspiritF !nderstanding appears aAin to the 7agen nurturing of the mind >hich chapter 1 suggested typified the dependencies created in the domestic domain These dependencies certainly ha"e a moral force: that is, persons so related Dby FAinshipFE define themsel"es through identifying >ith the concerns of others Spirit in A"atip, ho>e"er, is life,force to be augmented through self,assertion and intensification, aAin perhaps to FprestigeF in 7agen or >hat Gillison also calls Flife forceF in Gimi D*$&':*1&E The ritual system allo>s men to attain degrees of FspiritF through a male initiatory cult, gi"ing them access to a domain of life in >hich moral "alues are replaced by aesthetic ones L4 call these "alues aesthetic because they are concerned abo"e all >ith the po>er of signification This is "ie>ed as a capacity, inherent in NmaleO indi"iduality, to produce admiration, fear, desire or other types of affect in othersL D7arrison *$&(a:**%, original emphasisE A"atip men gain influence o"er others in their self,enhancement of spirit LA"atip religion does not celebrate moral consensus or the submission of the ego to the conscience collectiveL D*$&(a:**%E The specific aesthetic impact that 7arrison describes can be understood as the glimpsing of peopleFs capacities in a generali6ed shape at the moment of their being e.posed by the particulari6ing relations page3)&6 Page )&% >hich summon them 4 ha"e been using the term aesthetic in a >ider sense, to refer to all constraints of form The t>o types of sociality Dthe particular and the nonparticular or collecti"eE e.ist as alternati"e forms to each other because each anticipates the other We might say that in the same >ay as an agent and a cause stand in respecti"e acti"e2passi"e relationship, so each sociality is suspended in its o>n time The relationship has to be one of alternation or anticipation because neither can occupy the time of the other The one can only FappearF as the other in a transformed state Whether through the political de"ices of ceremonial e.change and clanship of the 7agen type, or through life,long e.changes that focus on Ain, in neither case is the collecti"e dimension merely a Ainship FdomainF aggrandi6ed The particular relations of Ainship are transformed into the display of a generali6ed capacity #on"ersely, nurture and gro>th is not Ainship condensed or miniaturi6ed 8ather, they are generali6ed capacities made "isible in the conte.t of particular relations These alternities become reified in the aesthetic of same,se. and cross,se. relations We no> see >hy gender constitutes an oscillation or alternation bet>een same,se. and cross,se. states These gi"e shape to a double alternation: on the one hand bet>een sociality in a collecti"e mode and a particular one; on the other hand bet>een being the incomplete agent >ho is acti"ated in relation to another and the complete person, a product of othersF interactions 4 repeat the teaching gi"en to Sambia boys: an indi"idual cannot be in both an acti"e and a passi"e state at the same time, but must )ehave as one or the other The alternations are not isomorphicthey do not FmapF on to each other They merely, but po>erfully, dra> on the one common aesthetic And this presents alternation itself as a mo"ement bet>een states, a seGuence of e"ents +"ents DactsE entail relations That is, relations DpersonsE are both the cause and outcome of acts Dnot the doing of themE TaAe the prescription that patrilateral and matrilateral Ain ha"e to be Aept separate This can be achie"ed in so far as they have their focus on a specific person -or that person is potentially an agent Their impact is seen to taAe different forms, in so far as the indi"idual agent acts upon the fact that her2his body and mind register the effects of these relationships The relationships become differentiated from one another in the one person >ho internally displays the difference they maAe We could put it that the Ain around him or her are not innately differentiated from one an, page3)&% Page )&& other 4t is the person2agent in her or his internal composition D"ia her or his internal relationsE >ho differentiates them

4 no> turn to the phenomenon of re,enactment, to the manner in >hich these internal relations are commemorated People are also able to substitute themsel"es for the relationship they ha"e >ith their senior Ain ;y their o>n decomposition they at once reify and indi"iduate their persons They do this through eating <no>ledge 4n A #onsumpti"e Production +conomy Metaphors of deconstitution ha"e run through my account: detachment, elimination, di"ision They do so in response to the fiction of con"ention2in"ention introduced in chapter %, and WagnerFs D*$%&E theoretical propositions about the practices of Melanesian Ano>ledge *' <no>ledge is not Fbuilt upF into a form; forms are taAen apart to re"eal their composition Melanesian analysis, if one may so call it, leads to indi"iduals testing their effects on others, trying out their capabilities, impro"ising and inno"ating, for capacities can only be Ano>n by the manner in >hich they are re"ealed ;ut >hat agents thereby re"eal is their constitution as persons Such processes of deconstitution result not as >e might suppose in an array of fragments; they result in a singularity concei"ed as an internal unity As 4 ha"e been describing it, the unity may be deri"ed from the di"idual through the hal"ing of a pair or may be the dissolution of a composite, multiple condition into a bounded, homogeneous state That unity itself re"eals the effects of the indi"idual agentFs acts Many of the social practices that a Westerner might taAe as ordering or aggregating acti"ities ha"e to be understood as deconstitutions of this Aind This should be apparent from the analysis of initiation rituals: the Sambia boy or the Gimi girl is not Fsociali6edF into some role or other through FacGuiringF attributes 8ather, an already e.isting composite entity is taAen apart and produced Dby their o>n actions as >ell as the actions of othersE in a unitary formthe potent father, the recepti"e mother The detachment of spouses from their Ain through bride,>ealth or affinal prestations and the mortuary ceremonies that restore a singular identity to a set of Ain are as much decompositions as menFs differentiating acts in bleeding their bodies or >omen secluding themsel"es >hen they menstruate There may >ell be an energi6ing or acti"ating outcome, for the person is besto>ed >ith a unity that generali6es page3)&& Page )&$ his or her o>n capacities as an agent and pro"ides her2him >ith the single position from >hich to act in the future ;ut the indi"idual also has to get the original composition right The logic of the anticipated outcome is Guite as much one of uncertainty as of certainty 4n an acti"ated state Das agentsE, persons must identify the proper causes of their acts, namely the relations of >hich they are composed, in hoping to achie"e the desired outcomes Thus in anticipation of a childFs birth, parents must secure its origin in the mediation of relations bet>een paternal and maternal Ain or bet>een the internal elements of the parturient motherFs body The act of detachment cannot taAe place if differentiation has not been properly accomplished Possibly this e.plains a pre"alent Melanesian attitude to human agencyat once an.ious and agnostic People say they do not Ano> >hat the outcome of certain acts >ill be: they cannot tell This can be institutionali6ed as an.iety ** 4t is encountered in the indi"idual susceptibility of initiands displaying themsel"es to an audienceFs ga6e D;iersacA *$&)E; in the "ulnerability of donors on a ceremonial ground >ho ha"e brought out their >ealth DA Strathern *$%(E; in "oiced uncertainty as to >hether an e"ent >ill e"en occur or not, as Mac9ean D*$&(E reports for Maring bride>ealth ceremonies 7ence e"ents appear both as di"inations of pre"ious states of affairs and omens of affairs to come Such uncertainty does not arise simply from the ha6ard of daily interactions but is built into e.pectations DMac9ean *$&(:*)*E As in many dispute settlement processes De g , #ounts and #ounts *$%1; Tu6in *$%1E, it is assumed that >hat is happening can only be Ano>n from the "antage point of some future e"ent that >ill e"ince its effects !ncertainty means that Ano>ledge itself has to be established as ha"ing happened, as an e"ent of sorts -eeding pro"ides an image for this recursi"e process -or 4 >ould maAe a general eGuation bet>een consumption and Ano>ledge DThe eGuation is mine, but 4 offer it as a >ay of imagining Melanesian imagery E The pre"ious section d>elt on the temporal seGuencing bet>een the gro>ing of things and their being brought out for all to see; there is a further temporal seGuencing bet>een such display and its consumption The fact that products are FconsumedF or taAen in by others creates the particular relationship bet>een the agent and those thus affected by her or his acts 4n turn, those >ho consume pri"ilege for the moment that relationship o"er multiple others, >hich become suppressed or eclipsed 4t may be literally momentary, as >hen a guest obser"es the canons of hospitality, or it may marA out a period of life, as a child is

page3)&$ Page )$' fed by its parent, or recur on a daily basis, as one spouse feeds the other The fed person is put into a passi"e condition -eeding establishes the FclaimF of the agent on him or her >ho >ill register the act What 4 say about food could also be said about Ano>ledge as such Ma.ing effects .no#n1 4n the description of #o. meri acti"ities presented in chapters 1 and $, a connection >as suggested bet>een >omenFs all,female acti"ities and menFs all,male cults 4t seemed a detraction that at the Juncture at >hich >omenFs accumulated sa"ings >ere brought out in public, men stepped in as public orators and booAAeepers :et male initiation seGuences also end >ith display to a mi.ed audience, e"en >ith marriage for the participants; and the items that circulate in ceremonial e.change are in the long run returned to the household /ot only are pigs eaten, but 7agen husbands secrete their shells in their >i"esF houses >ith care Production entails consumption Production in its form as gro>th or flo> rests on a same,se. construct: the acti"ity is en"isaged as the all,male encompassment of female or "ice "ersa ;ut production is not Ano>n, not FproducedF as it >ere, until the point of consumption by another The point at >hich items are consumed is the point at >hich their multiple Dcross,se.E constitution is re"ealed to those >ho elicit it Time and again >e encounter the idiomatic e.pression that a produced thing D5aulo >omenFs money2the Gimi child27agen pigs and shellsE is at some climactic moment Fbrought outsideF The moment of release is at once the moment of Ano>ledge>hat >as inside is made apparentand the moment of consumption WomenFs money is put to uses that also in"ol"e men, as a child is claimed as the fatherFs >orA, or an e.change partner claims his debt 7agen >i"es demand from their husbands porA to eat, >hile the e.clusi"e control a >oman has o"er crops in the ground is turned into multiple claims the moment they are har"ested 4t is through such display that a person FAno>sF >hat she or he is made of 4t becomes an e"ent, >ith the characteristics of an e"ent 4t FtaAes placeF in time and is indi"iduated by its aesthetic effect <no>ledge is communicated through the impact that the agentFs acts ha"e on the recipient2audience2consumer, that is, through their Ano>ledge To put it in SchieffelinFs D*$&(E terms, it is they >ho complete its reality 4f action dra>s out of persons >hat they are capable of, that capacity is re"ealed as the ability of an agent to mobili6e a constellation of relations The agentFs Dgenerali6edE capacity to maAe relations and the page3)$' Page )$* particular relations of >hich a person is already made are both made Ano>n 4ntent is retrospecti"e as >ell as prospecti"e An audience may be created by the display itself, as a recipient is created by ceremonial e.change, but a recipient also e.ists before the e"ent at >hich his pree.isting claims are re"ealed The recipient2consumer thus consumes >hat already belongs to him or her 7ageners, for instance, speaA generally of FeatingF >ealth ;ut there is a specific connotation to this phrase in relations of domestic Ainship As far as >omen are concerned, the significant point at >hich they FeatF >ealth is on the occasion of a Ains>omanFs marriage The multiply constructed child is claimed by both her paternal and maternal Ain, >ho maAe apparent their relationships through eating the bride>ealth We may thus eGuate both consumption and Ano>ledge >ith maAing apparent the constitution of persons and the things agents circulate The moment at >hich persons and things are brought into the open is the "ery moment before they are taAen bacA into a body 7erein lies the difference bet>een the prospecti"e body of a general audience >ho is made recepti"e by the display and the retrospecti"e body of those >ith prior claims #eremonial e.change proceeds >ith the former in "ie>, Ain,based e.changes >ith the latter 4n Ain,based e.changes, there is no e.pansion or multiplication of relationships: the consumer2recipient consumes an item that su)stitutes for his or her o#n previous acts 4t is the brideFs mother >ho abo"e all must eat porA at her daughterFs marriage, in recognition of the prior act of childbirth, and her nurture 5i"erse metaphors for Fthe motherFs pigF DM Strathern *$%):*'6E are e.plicit on this point 4n this ethnographic case, the process of substitution is final, and the >hole bride>ealth e"ent is liAened to death compensation *) ;ut 4 suspect the comparison bet>een birth and death is a general one; >hat is re"ealed, detached, brought out is a person Da child, a bride, the deceasedE reified as the end product of a constellation of relationships, and hence a FfinishedF or completed thing <no>ledge taAes place at a moment of FbirthF or a moment of FdeathF >ith eGual effect The #o. meri rituals dra> on the symbolism of birth, and

>omenFs gro>ing of a fetus >ithin the >omb 4n many Massim societies, gro>th occurs >ithin the F>ombF of the matrilineal subclan; it is at death that the multiple constitution of the socially acti"e person during his or her lifetime is displayed, then deconstituted and taAen apart, the affinal ties shed so that the matrilineal body can absorb bacA the deceased as page3)$* Page )$) clan member The claims of a Sabarl father on the child he has fed are e.tinguished >hen he FeatsF at the childFs mortuary feast D;attaglia *$&(:10)100E 4t is the relationship that has FdiedF +ating is an image for the substitution of one act for another Much of the earlier discussion about substitution Dsee chap $E dealt >ith the displacement of cross,se. relationships ;ut here >e encounter a different seGuence Within the single cross,se. relationshipthe affines linAed by bride>ealth or mortuary e.changesa difference is created bet>een t>o acts @ne act substitutes for another, in the re"erse flo> of food, both a reenactment and a transformation A prior act of feeding, on the part of a 7agen mother or a Sabarl father, is displaced by a subseGuent act in >hich the feeder is fed This effecti"e termination of the cross,se. relationship may be thought of as a reduction of ambiguity, as forming the relationship into its final mode 4n the same >ay as a 7agen brideFs agnates become Ano>n as Fmaternal AinF to her children, the matrilineal Ain of a deceasedFs Sabarl father are unambiguously placed on the FpaternalF side +ach is composed by the ne> claims of the groomFs agnates or the deceasedFs o>n matrilineal subclan A composition from one point of "ie> is a decomposition from another: relationships reduced to a single strand Perhaps there is a sense in >hich all consumption in"ol"es decomposition of this Aind>hat is FseenF at any one moment, the pri"ileging of one relationship o"er othersand that eating is al>ays at once energi6ing and debilitating 4t creates an agent by maAing the person incomplete, depri"ing her or him of a support base of a multiple nature +ating is idiomatically often eGuated >ith se.ual intercourse, and se.ual intercourse in turn is idiomatically often imagined in these societies as a Flittle deathF Dcompare Gillison *$&0:1'E Although, and striAingly in the Gimi case, >e may imagine that it is the obJect de"oured >hich is Ailled thereby, 4 >onder if there is not sometimes the idea that the de"ourer, the consumer, also dieslosing that prior part >ithin him or her >hich the ne> food displaces *0 More prosaically, the consumer as a container is reduced to a single identity in encompassing an obJect produced by another While the capacity for action can be replicated, acts can only substitute for one another This is as true of >hat an outsider might regard as the e"eryday acti"ity of eating as it is of staged performances 4ndeed, e"ery act contains its o>n performati"e ha6ard: it risAs its effects, so to speaA The reenactment or commemoration of other actsoneFs o>n page3)$) Page )$0 or other peopleFsis thus simultaneously an inno"ation and impro"i6ation upon them And FAillsF or completes them DWagner *$%&:)1E Consumption and coercion1 Gregory D*$&):00E comments on the Melanesian idioms in broad terms A linA bet>een eating and se.ual intercourse Lcan be seenL, he argues D*$&):00E, Las empirical support for Mar.Fs conception of consumption as the production of human beings L 4f FproductionF is maAing the capacities of persons DrelationsE manifest, then it is Guite appropriately termed consumpti"e production for these systems, in that >hat is being produced is Ano>ledge, and Ano>ledge is only FAno>nF by being consumed @ne connotation of the Western notion of FdomesticityF is that consumption is an entirely passi"e process, a taAing into the self of >hat has been produced >ith acti"ity and energy else>here -eminist arguments about the non"aluation of domestic labor are liAely to eGuate the self,e"ident use,"alue of an item >ith its eGually self,e"ident consumption #onsumption seems to be a nonproblematic reali6ation of attributes, a none"ent Melanesian ideas, ho>e"er, may maAe the process "ery problematic and at the least an e"ent 4n 7agen, the point at >hich food is consumed is the point at >hich >orA is recogni6ed: >hat is significant is that recognition is a specific act The consumer may be passi"e, in the sense that he or she is >itness of anotherFs agency, but becomes thereby a "ital FpersonF or reference point for that agent The eating that acti"ates that relation is also a Aind of reenactment and, as >e ha"e seen, "ery much a performance

4n its original formulation, consumpti"e production in"ol"es the personification of things that promotes the sur"i"al of persons 4nspired by 9R"i,Strauss, Gregory e.pands on Mar.Fs account of reproduction, taAing consumption to refer not only to peopleFs need for nourishment but also to reproduction through se.ual relationships and parenthood #onsumption, in this e.panded "ie>, becomes more than simply the Lusing up of materials and labour energiesL D*$&):0', my emphasisE 4n commodity economies, consumption might be producti"e in a >eaA sense: by taAing in food, the human being FproducesF his o>n body DGregory *$&):0*E ;ut in gift economies, it should be regarded as producti"e in a strong sensethe process by >hich things are transformed into persons is an inno"ati"e and incremental one This becomes apparent >ith the reali6ation that one is not dealing >ith indi"iduals >ho aim at self,replacement 4t is not as an Findi"idualF that someone page3)$0 Page )$1 consumes anotherFs products but as a FpersonF in that otherFs eyes Persons are the obJectified form of relationships, and it is not sur"i"al of the self that is at issue but the sur"i"al or termination of relations +ating does not necessarily imply nurture; it is not an intrinsically beneficiary act, as it is taAen to be in the Western commodity "ie> that regards the self as thereby perpetuating its o>n e.istence 8ather, eating e.poses the Melanesian person to all the ha6ards of the relationships of >hich he2she is composed 4 recall again that one may >ish to disagreegate the acti"ities of feeding and gro>ing Gro>th in social terms is not a refle. of nourishment; rather, in being a proper receptacle for nourishment, the nourished person bears >itness to the effecti"eness of a relationship >ith the mother, father, sisterFs husband or >hoe"er is doing the feeding The recipient of nourishment is as specifically defined as the pro"ider of it #onsumption is no simple matter of self,replacement, then, but the recognition and monitoring of relationships 4ndeed, 4 >ould argue that in these systems, people cannot be concerned >ith self ,replacement at all The >hole burden of analy6ing the obJectifications of a gift economy Dchaps & and $E has been that, if >e use the shorthand at all, it is persons DrelationsE >ho replace persons DrelationsE These may appear as bodies, but then the body is an obJectified form: the self so to speaA from anotherFs point of "ie> The self as indi"idual subJect e.ists rather in his or her capacity to transform relations, an embodied po>er >hich re"eals itself in its effects The self is acti"ated in so far as such relations DpersonsE are summoned by the agent and are re"ealed as the agentFs supports 4n effect, then, >hile eating is an act that only the agent can undertaAe for him or herself, its result is to maAe the agent into a person Dan obJectE from anotherFs "ie>point The agentFs acts conseGuently appear in a final and thus different form from the acti"ity itself: the parent produces a child as the gardener produces yams A parent does not produce a parent: the child in turn must be made to re"eal parental capacity from >ithin An agent only e"er FreproducesF him or herself in another form The recipient Dbeneficiary or "ictimE of anotherFs acts is also their effect or product; she or he is thus an obJect of that agentFs regard @ne agent does not so to speaA FproduceF another ;ut an agent may e.pect that the original act be commemorated This is certainly the "oiced e.pectation of the 7agen brideFs mother The person DbrideE that an agent DmotherE created reenacts that act of creation 4t is the bride >ho is regarded as bringing porA to her Ain and her mother, carrying it, as page3)$1 Page )$( she does for part of the ceremony, on her bacA 4n so doing, she Dthe brideE becomes an agent in turn, reconstituting in her o>n regard the person DmotherE >ho is manifestly one of the causes of her e.istence The conditions that enable the mother to gi"e birth to a daughter >ith her o>n separate social identity include a lifetimeFs history of affinal e.changes, but maternal agency is manifest in the form of the uniGue e"ent of birth A child him or herself can then become his or her o>n agent by commemorating that e"entacAno>ledging the e.change relations that >ere the particulari6ing precondition of the motherFs capacity Persons may thus maAe o"ert the original relations or causes that produced them through their o>n transactions They can also do again >hat their mothers or fathers, or motherFs brothers or sisterFs husbands did in feeding them: they eat -ood may be of multiple origin, but it is eaten by oneself, and these relations acGuire a singular site in the indi"idual body Throughout their lifetime, then, agents continue to commemorate themsel"es as persons Dcomposed of the relationships >hich focus on themE through the food they consume 4n so far as they attend to the social sources of their o>n constitutionpayments to maternal Ain, sacrifice to paternal Ainagents thereby acti"ate themsel"es and sustain their o>n indi"iduality

7o>e"er many times it is done, each act of eating is also a single e"ent, oriented to>ard a single source This has the conseGuence already noted To reconstitute oneself in the regard of a particular other is also to deconstitute the multiplicity of relations that might ha"e been commemorated That other is pri"ileged as a reference point Da causeE for the acts 7ence a >oman is Ano>n simply as the FmotherF of the bride >hen she eats the pig that substitutes for her o>n agency to>ards her daughter The particularity of that relationship eclipses or suppresses all other aspects of the >omanFs identity At the same time, the substitution is anticipated: the mother acts so to speaA in order to become a cause, to be the occasion for a reenactment, and thus a personto become the obJect of the acts of others, as Munn D*$&0E describes is an aim of .ula partners To be a cause is to have )een an agent This passi"ity is coerci"e 4t is >ith respect to acts, then, that one may properly talA of a cause and an agent TaAing action indi"iduates the agent as a subJect, and in his2her "ie> the cause of the action e.ists as an e.ternal reference point ;ut to be a reference point, a person to another in "irtue of the relationship thereby established, is the precondition for oneFs o>n agency 4n page3)$( Page )$6 directing an agentFs attention, so to speaA, one becomes an agent oneself, in the >ay that a solicitory gift opens an e.change seGuence, or betrothal gifts elicit bride besto>al 4ndeed, >e ha"e already encountered this anticipation in reciprocal form, >hen t>o persons are conceptuali6ed as a pair, each of >hom elicits a reaction from the other 4t is al>ays one of a pair >ho taAes action: the act of elicitation is the coming out or maAing Ano>n of the otherFs internal condition The e"ent is often elaborately contri"ed as a performance, and there is a reason for this The physical staging of a performance is an attempt to o"ercome the recursi"eness of time As 4 described it earlier, the uncertainty of the anticipated outcome inheres in the status of an e"ent itself, in doubt as to >hether or not an act has taAen place -or anticipation is also regression The precondition for something to happen must be part of the happening An e"ent is Ano>n by both prior and ensuing e"ents So production is only FproducedF at the moment of consumption; Ano>ledge is only FAno>nF through the Ano>ledge others acGuire; for an effect to emerge, the cause must be properly in place; there are preconditions for conditions, in short a perpetual regression from outcome to cause that is summed up in that remarAable Sambia con"entionthough by no means confined to themthat food must be fed *1 /onetheless, as a performance, Fcoming outF can be staged as a particular moment >ith a time of its o>n Dp )&*E A common image is the "isual emergence from an enclosure The e"ent is simultaneously prestaged, because the enclosure has established as a precondition the unity of the agentDsE As >e ha"e seen in earlier chapters, enclosure may taAe the form of an en"elopment by a single body, or of a homogeneous action that creates a collecti"ity When men build fences around cult areas they create a unity both bet>een themsel"es and in relation to the spirits >ith >hom they are Joined: at the point of bursting forth, they both detach themsel"es from that en"eloping relationship and re"eal the association in their enhanced form As through transactions associated >ith Ftransformed AinshipF Dp )61E, the beneficiaries gro> until the moment >hen they detach themsel"es in FbirthF Dor FdeathFE from the encircling relationships 4n so far as menFs acti"ity is thereby seen as the deliberate binding together of persons >hose social orientations are other>ise diffuse and "ariously directed, the unifying nature of the collecti"e action is inherently energi6ing in maAing the participants other than >hat they >ere ;ut the ne> state must be communicated in order to be Ano>n, page3)$6 Page )$% hence Sch>immerFs obser"ation about the couple as the basic unit for the transmission of messages 4n his e.ample, messages are passed bet>een men and the spirit >orld A couple is formed of t>o moieties or t>o eGuals or by a senior2Junior pair; they are aliAe in that each plays a flute or >ears a masA, thus representing the spirits +ach is the otherFs source of re"elation: FFeach Ano>s himself to be man, but >hen he looAs at his partner he can see a spiritL D*$&1:)(0E The moment of bursting forth out of an enclosure is the moment at >hich the actors display >hat 4 ha"e called the generali6ed capacity they ha"e >ithin before it is particulari6ed as food or Ano>ledge consumed by the e.ternal audience or partner >ho, ha"ing elicited it, is also the coerci"e cause of the act The energy >hich agents display may be taAen as a refle. of this coercion 4ndeed the acti"ation of relations seems to

reGuire energy and force precisely for the reason that persons bear e"idence >ithin themsel"es of >hat has happened to them Whether interaction produces a relationship that in mediating bet>een t>o parties Fadds toF their identities, or else an unmediated impingement by one on the other becomes registered in an alteration to the latterFs body, there is a forcefulness in the >ay these interactions are conducted *( Transformation reGuires and is thus e"idence of effort Gifts are pressed on others; plants are compelled to gro>; >orA is a matter of mind, >ill, intention: there >ould be nothing to Ano> other>ise The "isible energy is, one suspects, a result of the aesthetic reGuirement that acts must appear in a form other than the agentFs intention, and to that e.tent are FseparatedF from the agent -urthermore, the subseGuent outcome of actions, their effect, is al>ays embodied in another Drelation, personE 4f force is applied to an e.ternal obJect it is to display the imprint of oneFs o>n effecti"eness, and in this sense to maAe the obJect part of oneself 4ndeed, "iolence may ha"e an assimilati"e effect in general; a 7agen >oman beaten by her husband >ears the blood or bruises as a sign of his acts; the remedy she seeAs is the inter"ention of her Ain >ho >ill restore the dignity of her separate status +.change partners are assimilated to the gifts that they e.change and circulate in coercing the recipient to accept them; parents implicate themsel"es in the plants2children they nurture and produce, "iolently during initiation seGuences, and in reciprocal pain during childbirth These gifts and children must register their acts, and the possibility of registration has its o>n precondition Things must appear so as to elicit recognition from page3)$% Page )$& others The difference bet>een the agent and the produced yams, shell "aluables, brides, sons is only Ano>n if these things assume a proper shape 7ere >e return to the significance of gender Analogic Gender 4n summary, 4 ha"e suggested that ideas about gender pro"ide the aesthetic con"ention through >hich forms are seen to appear 8elations, the o"ert obJect of peopleFs attentions, are thereby reified in the manner in >hich they are differentiated from one another 4n our "ie>, >hat is concealed is precisely this con"entional basis That FdifferenceF is >hat >e >ould call a symbolic or classificatory construct, contri"ed as >e >ould see it either through the contrast bet>een male and female or through the contrast bet>een same,se. and cross,se. relations 4n Melanesian systems of Ano>ledge, ho>e"er, difference is presented as an a.iomatic conseGuence of people ensuring that recogni6able forms of action occur Gender pro"ides, then, the medium through >hich differentiation as such is apprehended 4t gi"es a form to relations, >hich thereby become directed in one of t>o >ays, as either replicating or else substituting for one another The FdifferenceF bet>een replication and substitution in turn appears in that bet>een same,se. and cross,se. interactions People Ano> >hich Aind of e"ent or performance they >itness through the gender relations it mobili6es ;y the same toAen, they also Ano> >hen one e"ent has become another ;ut that puts the seGuence bacA to front; rather, they also Ano> that e"ents are caused and ha"e their outcomes, and that one Aind of e"ent must ine"itably lead to another This regression2anticipation2alternation is contained >ithin the possibilities of a procreati"e gender imagery predicated on the capacity of one form to emerge from another form An androgyne is composed of, and can be decomposed into, male and female elements +ither element may also be construed to e.ist as an independent body These constructions define a male body as ha"ing the capacity to contain >ithin itself >hat it can also detach from itself, namely female body; >hile a female body contains and detaches from itself male body The imagery may so e"oAe the condition of FphysicalF bodies or of FsocialF bodies aliAe Dand 4 remind the reader that one also means FmindF in the Melanesian conte.tE Since persons appear in male, female, or androgynous form, the possibility of one form appearing out of another page3)$& Page )$$ is seen to be a possibility that lies >ithin the body We must remember that persons obJectify relations: bodies and minds are conseGuently their reified manifestation And they must al>ays taAe a manifest shape, that is, display a differentiated condition @n the one hand, the difference bet>een a same,se. and a cross,se. state is that the one is a transformation of the other; on the other hand, male and female are analogic "ersions of each other, each acting in its o>n distincti"e >ay PeopleFs beha"ior necessarily re"eals

both their o>n and the condition of others: beha"ior is gendered 4 suggested that acts indi"iduate persons; it is thus peopleFs acts that establish the gender of the beha"ior, in maAing apparent the condition of their o>n and othersF bodies2minds 7ere one encounters an interesting constraint An androgyne does not act; that is, persons are acti"ated, become agents, only in a same,se. condition, as male or female The gender aesthetic discriminates bet>een the "ery possibility of one taAing action as an indi"idual subJect and being the inert outcome of other peopleFs acts This has implications for the >ay in >hich people imagine the relationship bet>een cause and effect An agent appears as either FmaleF or FfemaleF in relation to the obJects of his or her acts: they must appear as reciprocally FfemaleF or FmaleF The illusion is that coercion seems to lie in gender itself: the Paiela husbands >ho ha"e to compel their >i"es to gro> them; the Gimi fathers >ho force the mother to e.trude the child born of paternal spirit; the Trobriand brother >ho induces his sisterFs husband to at once maAe and yield bacA the child that belongs to him; the Sambia males >ho impose cooperation on their younger partners And on the other side are the Paiela >i"es >ho obser"e the effects of their o>n intentions in the bodies of men; the collecti"ity of Gimi mothers >ho consume male corpses; Trobriand sisters >ho create brotherFs sons; and the at once strengthened and humiliated bodies of FfemaleF Sambia no"ices >ho contain menFs replenishment in themsel"es These are not FsubJectsF acting upon FobJectsF The intent of the actcoercionis to establish the "ery relationship itself 4n gender idiom, each se. elicits the acts of the other, for those counteracts are the e"idence of its o>n efficacy ;ut in so far as each is also the cause of the otherFs acts, there is nothing automatic about elicitation; it is effected under the conditions of uncertainty and an.iety noted earlier 4t is no parado. that males are essential to maternal agency Men assist birth; their o>n social producti"ity must be made "isible in an, page3)$$ Page 0'' otherFs body #onseGuently they do more, in the Gimi case for instance, than Just maAing themsel"es fathers of the ne>born child +"idence of paternity is established by the fact that their acts enable the #oman to gi"e birth and herself become a mother The early 7ighlands ethnographers >ere right: the necessity for men to act comes from >hat happens to >omen ;ut they >ere right for the >rong reason The reason is not because of >omenFs self,e"ident nature, but because of ho> they e"ince the capacities of men And it is the >omen >ho ha"e to do it 7ence >e should also pay attention to the con"erse; that it is >omen >ho enable men to produce as fathers The Melanesian child is no paternal or maternal product by simple contiguity >ith a parental body @n the contrary, its assimilation to a source concei"ed of as male or as an en"eloping maternity or as the transactions of a brother,sister pair must be the specific outcome of particular acts The gender of the acti"ity depends on the >ay social relations are construed and their cause and effect seGuencing +"ents do not happen if people do not maAe them happen; FthingsF do not appear on their o>n Action consists of compelling, e.erting, impressing oneself on others -or before an agentFs acts can ha"e effect, the agent must in turn ha"e been caused to act and must coerce another into being Just such a reason for her or his acti"ity 4ndeed, peopleFs FcausesF seem a >idespread ritual preoccupation Melanesian Ano>ledge practices deal >ith categories that are imagined as subJect neither to disco"ery Din the enlightenment sense of re"ealing and laying bare their true natureE nor to cultural elaboration Din the empiricist sense of rendering the natural artificialE, but rather to transformation The outcome of a relation must also be the reason for it As >e ha"e seen, >hat is simultaneously thro>n into doubt is not simply >hether any set of interactions >ill achie"e anything Dha"e an outcomeE, but >hether its reasons, its origins, still hold good An effect is contingent on the correct identification of the cause, health on the good fa"or of ancestors Actions are oriented to establishing the reasons for relations in order to gauge their outcome 7ence the endless search for ForiginsF De g , Gell *$%(; ;arth *$%(E is part of the uncertainty of all actsthe >ay in >hich past achie"ements and effects are also an.ious omens for the future At the same time, of course, to be or to e"ince an effect FisF to be or e"ince a cause, the source of it, in another form :et because of the Fanother formF, assimilation to an origin is bound, as 4 ha"e indicated, to contain a measure of "iolence The ancestors are dead 4dentity >ith a source can only be reali6ed DAno>n, pro, page30''

Page 0'* ducedE through detachment from it The dependency of product on source is "iolent, so to speaA, because agency, the possibility of entering into further producti"e relationships, reGuires the person to e.tract him or herself from prior ones @r to displace one set of acts by their commemoration 4n the conte.t of Ain relations, certain persons Dsuch as motherFs brothers in agnatic systemsE may be reGuired to accept their place as an empo>ering FcauseF of say Dtheir sisterFs sonFsE gro>th ;ut a cause is no longer acti"e: it is superseded The action has already taAen place The burden is on the agent to force others into being a cause for his2her e.tracti"e acts A 7agen >oman coerces her husband into maAing those e.changes >ith her Ain of >hich his marriage to her is the cause A .ula partner seduces his o"erseas counterpart to gi"e in order that he himself >ill ha"e cause to gi"e @lder men inflict pain on the Sambia initiates as the cause of their ha"ing to gro> thema relation of reciprocal elicitation also enacted >ith tenderness bet>een the boy and his indi"idual inseminator Such conceptuali6ations of agency find no ultimate e.pression in self,e.pression The indi"idual subJect can only act, and in doing so, indicate its state of relations >ith others #onseGuently, he or she is "ulnerable to the premise that agency can only sho> e"idence of itself in its impact on these others, and failure is al>ays possible #auses do not appear as causes should; peopleFs minds may be di"erted; it is necessary that >omen sho> that gro>th can be transformed into e.ternal social obJects, that they do actually gi"e birth; it is also necessary that men should complete their e.changes properly +"idence lies in aesthetic propriety, in the gender of the act 7ighlands >omen circulate in marriage as the obJects DcausesE of menFs acti"e transactions; con"ersely, >hen >omen acti"ely tend children, menFs transactions become the causes of that nurturing relationship Percei"ed together, the se.es appear in a relation of mutual elicitation, either the cause of the otherFs agency A subJectFs anticipation of anotherFs "ie>point means that a relation can al>ays appear to be something else, that the persons or >ealth items >hich appear to be the obJect of one relationship Dsuch as bet>een a 7agen husband and >ifeE can then appear to be the obJect of another Das bet>een a man and his affinesE SeGuencing is in"ol"ed: one of the parties to the original relation is reGuired also to instigate the ne> one Thus one relationship may Fturn intoF another ;ut since that capacity has been anticipated, >e can also say that one relation Fstands forF page30'* Page 0') another That bet>een a man and his male affines also anticipates and in this sense substitutes for his relationship >ith his >ife Since relations are seen to ha"e an outcome DeffectE, transformed in turn into persons, outcomes also present themsel"es as the reason DcauseE for relations :et this process is to be distinguished from the simultaneous or timeless encompassment of anotherFs point of "ie>: if male semen is Fthe same asF female milA, it is already in this sense the otherFs "ie> As mutual causes of one anotherFs acts, male and female neither turn into nor stand for each other They are simply t>o Ainds of, t>o "ersions of, the capacity to act and cause action :et parado.ically, the "ery acti"ity of temporal transformation leads to this atemporal state of affairs As a social microcosm, the Melanesian person is a li"ing commemoration of the actions >hich produced it 4 ha"e argued that a person must therefore al>ays be a particular person, the product of specific, irre"ersible interactions, in gender terms an androgyne Agents, on the other hand, indi"idual subJects, act by "irtue of their generali6ed capacities, that is, by the capacity for action itself, to be FoneF, to act as FoneF 4f it is indeed acts >hich indi"iduate, they conseGuently maAe the subJect DagentE appear in one of t>o forms, uniGue in gender terms This is the same as saying the indi"idual al>ays acts in one of t>o such >ays, as a male or as a female 4t is only their gender that differentiates agents Qua agents, indi"iduals are in themsel"es nonspecific entities Maleness and femaleness indicate a difference in the agentsF capacities, then, but in so far as they refer only to this differencethey distinguish >hat Aind of agent an indi"idual isremain analogues of each other This construction collapses the relationship bet>een cause and effect 4t turns a seGuence of e"ents into the conte.t for them 9et me sho> ho> this contradiction might be imagined 4t can only be done, as has been necessary all along, through rearranging the elements of the narrati"e We ha"e seen ho> integral to the staging of Melanesian performances and e"ents is the reification of the difference bet>een cause and agent and bet>een agent and effect; either can be presented as the difference bet>een male and female The one form thereby appears to elicit the other, for male and female al>ays reGuire the other for completion An agent acts >ith respect to a cause separate from him or her and

produces her or his action in a form Dits effectE other than the action itself 4n relation to either cause or effect Dimagined as relations or personsE, the agent engages in cross,se. interaction The agent thereby FactsF in the page30') Page 0'0 conte.t of this relationship and produces this relationship by so acting Seen from his or her "ie>point, the causes and effects of her or his actions are other persons ;ut an agent may also percei"e the person in reference to >hom action is taAen as an agent liAe her or himself What maAes them aliAe is their capacity for action, hence the reciprocal form of the pair Performer and audience, se.ual partners, parent and child are all en"isaged in reciprocal terms; each agent appears as capable of dra>ing forth the internal capacities of the other While e"ery act remains asymmetric Dthe one partner an agent, the other the microcosm of relations or person >hich is deconstitutedE, >hat maAes the agents themsel"es symmetric is, as >e ha"e seen, their potential for action And in terms of that potential, each remains aliAe: the one does not become the other #onseGuently, >hen they are in a position for either to reali6e this potential >ith respect to the other, a pair becomes matched in a relationship of mutual elicitation -or >hat each encompasses >ithin its o>n form is the capacity to elicit the acts of the other This is an analogical relationship that has no time to it 4n his e.patiation on types of Ano>ledge, ;ourdieu discusses 9R"i,StraussFs treatment of the gift 9R"i,Strauss broAe >ith Fnati"e theoryF: it >as not the irre"ersible seGuencing of indi"idual e.change transactions as people e.perienced them >hich >as the principal phenomenon but the re"ersibility of the cycle of reciprocity ;ourdieuFs point is that the co"ering mechanism that defines the agentsF practice is as important an obJect of anthropological Ano>ledge as >hat it co"ers People only apparently hide from themsel"es the other side of that e.perience 4f the system is to >orA, the agents must not be entirely una>are of the truth of their e.changes, >hich is made e.plicit in the anthropologistFs model, >hile at the same time they must refuse to Ano> and abo"e all to recogni6e it 4n short, e"erything taAes place as if agentsF practice, and in particular their manipulation of time, >ere organi6ed e.clusi"ely >ith a "ie> to concealing from themsel"es and from others the truth of their practice, >hich the anthropologist and his models bring to light simply by substituting the timeless model for a scheme >hich >orAs itself out only in and through time D*$%%:6, emphasis and note omittedE 7e therefore some>hat misleadingly recommends NtOhe difference and delay >hich the monothetic model obliterates must be brought into the model not, as 9R"i,Strauss suggests, out of a FphenomenologicalF desire to restore the subJecti"e e.perience of the practice of the e.change, but because the operation of gift e.change presupposes Dindi"idual page30'0 Page 0'1 and collecti"eE misrecognition Dm8connaissanceE of the reality of the obJecti"e FmechanismF of the e.change the inter"al bet>een gift and countergift is >hat allo>s a pattern of e.change that is al>ays liable to striAe the obser"er and also the participants as re"ersible, i e both forced and interested, to be e.perienced as irre"ersible D*$%%:(6, emphasis remo"edE We may asA ho> the difference bet>een re"ersible and irre"ersible seGuences are so e.perienced The Fas ifF practices to >hich ;ourdieu dra>s attention could be considered in the nature of an indigenous transformation ;ut beyond the misrecognition in"ol"ed in turning one Aind of relationship into another is the misrecognition of the basis of differentiation itself, "i6 , bet>een the one e.perience and the other This is >here 4 refer to con"ention The anthropologist does not here re"eal >hat the participants also Ano> but creates a different Aind of Ano>ledge for him or herself 4t >ill be recalled Dchap 6E that it >as =osephidesFs interest in the mechanism of misrecognition that led her to Guestion the rhetoric of reciprocity in 7ighlands gift e.change F8eciprocityF, she argues, co"ers up ineGualities bet>een men and >omen ;ut it is the other side of this Melanesian construction that interests me @nly the taAing of irre"ersible FuneGualF action >ill co"er up the analogic and potentially re"ersible concepts of maleness and femaleness on >hich con"ention rests Melanesians presumably FAno>F >hen they conceal this analogy, because they also FAno>F >hen they re"eal it They seeA to unco"er the gender of

things What they do not Ano> they do not concealS 4f their practices further conceal things from the obser"er, then these conceal the "ery different Aind of Ano>ledge that the obser"er desires, as >hen she or he seeAs to unco"er the con"ention itself @bser"ers of ceremonial e.change transactions ha"e long recogni6ed the poignancy of the completed debt #iting Sahlins, Munn obser"es of Ga>an .ula: LNoOnce a shell is matched, it is necessary to create a ne> imbalance in order to Aeep shells mo"ing along a pathL D*$&0:)&)E 5amon D*$&0:0)0E maAes the same obser"ation of transformations in Ain e.changes A completed relationship dies >ith the closing gift: it has been made apparent, reciprocally "isible to both sides 4ts benefits need to be hidden again in the body of either one or the other partner for there to be any cause for a future, any reason for further e"ents to taAe place The obser"er can see that it is the analogic con"entions of gender Dthe matchingE >hich sub"ert the temporali6ing and indi"iduating possibilities of particular e"ents and seGuences 4magined as reciprocal agents, as a pair, FmaleF and FfemaleF stand in page30'1 Page 0'( contrast to the relationship bet>een them, to the completed result of their interaction 8elationships DFpersonsFE are merely the condition for action, not themsel"es acts ;ut this itself is a reason for taAing action The "ery gender symbolism that separates an agent from the cause and effect of her or his actions also creates male and female as timeless analogues of one another They become differentiated only from their mutual relationship in its androgynous, nonacti"e form, >hich then appears as the simultaneous cause and effect of their interactions #ause and effect become in turn conflated as the single conte.t or condition for action 4t is the aesthetic of gender, then, >hich re"eals to the obser"er the Melanesian gift in its cultural form: the anticipated outcome The aesthetic collapses time Against it, and through their particular and temporali6ed transactions, Melanesians appear to be constantly in"enting supports for themsel"es page30'( Page 0'%

#@/#9!S4@/ page30'% Page 0'$

** 5omination The as,if and so,to,speaA hesitations in my account ha"e been Guite deliberate 4 ha"e not authored Fa perspecti"eF on Melanesian society and culture; 4 ha"e hoped to sho> the difference that perspecti"e maAes, as one might contri"e an internal dissociation bet>een the character of an author and the character of his2her characters #onseGuently, 4 ha"e not presented Melanesian ideas but an analysis from the point of "ie> of Western anthropological and feminist preoccupations of >hat Melanesian ideas might looA liAe if they >ere to appear in the form of those preoccupations The account >as therefore not phenomenological in the ordinary sense, since it did not pretend to elucidate things as they seem to the actors 8ather, 4 ha"e tried to con"ey Melanesian Ano>ledge practices as though they >ere a series of analyses >hich afford e.planations for the >ay things seem /or did 4 offer an emic interpretation of Melanesian cultureDsE that >ould suppose etic >ere separate from emic, and so trail a positi"ist premise about the inherent nature of each 8ather, 4 ha"e tried to e.pand the metaphorical possibilities of our o>n language of analysis This has meant analy6ing the metaphors themsel"es, here deri"ed from Western social science, as though they could be decomposed, taAing them apart in order to reutili6e their components 4t has also meant putting together a narrati"e of Melanesian life that is synthetic and in that sense a fiction To consider one of my chief e.amples: the concepts FmaleF and Ffe,

page30'$ Page 0*' maleF ha"e been understood not as moti"ating or mystical principles at >orA in society, but as con"entional descriptions of the forms in >hich Melanesians maAe persons and things Ano>n /onetheless it may >ell seem to the reader that such concepts ha"e become too reified, too abstract, in the course of argument @r instead that they ha"e become too personified, as though being credited >ith a life of their o>n The presentation of abstract concepts as though they could FdoF things is, as 4 shall discuss briefly in this chapter, an adJunct of Western ideas about the role society plays in life There is a danger here, as 9e>is D*$&':))*E obser"es The anthropologist, he admonishes, is not free to speculate at >ill, and >rite his or her speculations into other peopleFs ideas as though they had meanings in themsel"es 4n peopleFs li"es, of course, ideas cannot possibly ha"e a FlifeF of their o>n ;ut in the conte.t of an effort to describe such other li"es, it is legitimate literary artifice to gi"e their ideas something of an independent e.istence 4f they are not autonomously constructed in the narrati"e, and thus credited as ha"ing sources independent from the ethnographerFs o>n culture, then other ideas deri"ed from that culture >ill ine"itably taAe on that acti"e role as unacAno>ledged animators of the plot To be true to Western idiom 4 ha"e tried to maAe the animation Dthe con"entionsE of this account e.plicit To be true to the Melanesian idiom 4 ha"e tried to be an elbo>, to inter"ene bet>een t>o sets of obJectificationsMelanesian and Western +uropean ideasin order to turn one into the other -rom my single position, of course, 4 can only effect that in one direction, for to >rite about Melanesian culture as another culture is already to imagine it as a "ersion of or counterpart to Western culture An agent acts, in Melanesian imagery, looAing t>o >ays from a single "antage point This means that the agent acts from a position subsumed by neither 4n this booA, part ) has been almost e.clusi"ely concerned >ith an anthropologically concei"ed difference bet>een Melanesian and Western cultures, in turning the language of one to present the other :et there is more here than an e.ercise in dialectic; the e.ercise >as also >ith a purpose, its intention e.isting in another dimension The position >hich 4 occupy is also defined by e.ogenous feminist interests 4n the same >ay, part * tried to FturnF the relationship bet>een feminist and anthropological Guestions There 4 >as rendering feminist ideas into anthropological ones The independent a.is for this elbo>ing e.ercise >as Melanesian ethnography ;ut the Job >as left incomplete at that stage page30*' Page 0** 4f 4 no> reco"er at least some of the earlier feminist Guestions, it is to remain >ithin the confines of Western and Melanesian idiom @ne culture is only to be seen, as ;oon D*$&)E reminds us, from the perspecti"e of another 4ndeed, no remarA in this booA can be construed as lying beyond them; any generalities ha"e been specific to this double conte.t, and no uni"ersals are intended This is rele"ant to conclusions >e might >ish to dra> Mothers Who 5o /ot MaAe ;abies -eminism and anthropology, obser"es SacAs D*$%$:*'E, gre> up together o"er the course of the nineteenth century They >ere at once in collusion >ith and in critiGue of one another, alongside as she says, socialism, >orAing,class consciousness, and imperialism 7ence, FFto understand NnonfeministO anthropological ideas about >omen reGuires reference to the comple. social changes entailed by the de"elopment of industrial capitalism,L >here nature and biology became unconscious metaphors for social relations She suggests that much anthropology is conseGuently encumbered >ith the follo>ing reasoning: L* MaAing babies and shaping culture are incompatible ) Women maAe babies 0 Therefore only men can maAe cultureL D*$%$:)(E This is the basis for her criticism of anthropological treatments of the domestic domain >hich persist in an innatist or essentialist eGuation bet>een >omen and domesticity 4n the company of other feminist anthropologists, she seeAs to restore culture to >omenLto refute the a.iom that motherhood and political po>er and economic and personal autonomy are incompatibleL D*$%$:66E 4t is an important argument, but 4 taAe a "ery different route to it She is right about the reasoning ;ut >hat must also be noted is the ethnocentricity of the middle proposition, the illusion that LWomen maAe babies L * The attention of nonanthropological as >ell as anthropologically,minded feminists is held by the inJustice of the eGuation bet>een men and culture 9R"i,StraussFs >orA in particular has attracted comment @bJections are made to his classic disGuisition on the e.change of >omen among men, and thus to his argument that the

Lact of e.change holds a society together: the rules of Ainship are the society L The >ords are MitchellFs D*$%(:0%', original emphasisE -eminist commentators sei6e on t>o intert>ined points -irst is the notion that e.change is a ubiGuitous means of social commerce, the threads of social discourse, the means by >hich in the absence of go"ernment, societies are page30** Page 0*) held together ) Second is the specific emphasis that 9R"i,Strauss lent to this theory of primiti"e reciprocity, that marriage is the most basic form of gift e.change, and >omen the most precious gift D8ubin *$%(:*%0; see 9R"i,Strauss *$6$:chap (E 4t is this Fe.change of >omenF syndrome that has attracted feminist commentary outside anthropology 0 There certainly seems an eGui"ocation in 9R"i,StraussFs account @n the one hand, >omen are signs for relations that men create bet>een themsel"es and thus stand for parts men dispose of in dealing >ith other men; on the other hand, it >ould seem that they are utili6able as signs because they also stand for themsel"es, that is, they ha"e a self,e"ident "alue @ne has to agree >ith 9eacocA D*$&*:chaps **, *)E that on the latter point 9R"i,Strauss lays himself open to the charge of eGuating >omen >ith commodities She cites his obser"ation that >omen are Lthe most precious possessionL because they are not only a Lsign of social "alue, but a natural stimulantL D*$6$:6)E 1 4ndeed, he Justifies the plausibility of marriage e.change in the actorsF eyes through the fact that >omen are regarded as an essential source of life, and thus liAe that L"ital commodityL, food D*$6$:0)E 4n 9eacocAFs reading D*$&*:)0*E( Lhe posits a unitary principle to e.plain the origin of incest and of society itself, as >ell as of succeeding types of Ain,based structures This principle is the allocation, by males, of the ser"ices, se.ual and other>ise, of females FF She protests, as does +lshtain, that such a formula taAes a>ay >omenFs subJecti"ity ;ut this apparently simple and straightfor>ard criticism brings us bacA to the issue of cultural comple.ity raised in chapter * The anthropologistFs efforts at communication are hampered by his or her "ery subJect matter; and indeed if they are not, if there are no hesitations, then something is >rong -or the subJect matter includes the need to treat comple.ity and di"ersity in areas the Western reader taAes for granted, abo"e all, in ho> persons impinge upon one another as subJects Western metaphors of social discourse and domination taAe for granted an interlocution bet>een thinAing, acting beings The rest is FobJectified role,playingF or Fabstracted structuresF What commodity logic promotes is a percei"ed di"ersity and comple.ity not in relationships but in the attributes of persons as sel"es and agents +lshtain D*$&*:00&00$E maAes an interesting protest o"er 8osaldoFs D*$%1E comparison bet>een 4longot and American culture To her, the 4longot are La tribe >hich still practices head,hunting L 4gnoring the comple.ities of the relationship bet>een male head,hunting and female nurture, she chides 8osaldo for maAing an inappropriate comparison page30*) Page 0*0 bet>een tribes and ci"ili6ations 8osaldo >as not comparing the t>o in holistic terms, >here indeed differences of scale >ould be rele"ant; she >as comparing the manner in >hich separations are construed bet>een male and female spheres of acti"ity +lshtain, ho>e"er, sees only that the 4longot enJoy La simpler >ay of life L ;y contrast, >hat di"ersity there is in ci"ili6ationS L7uman social forms and the human mind gro> more comple., nuanced, and structured >ithin ci"ili6ation, filled >ith multiple identifications and en"isagements DmindE, and multiple possibilities and roles Dsocial formsEL D*$&*:00$E 5i"erse as the social forms may be, the central idea that Lindi"iduals must constitute themsel"es as subJects, as acti"e agents of their o>n destinyL D*$&*:011E is, in comparison >ith Melanesian constructions of relationships, simpleminded indeed to say the least The general neglect of subJecti"ity is one of +lshtainFs main complaints -rom the perspecti"e of a political scientist, she scrutini6es the >orA of Mitchell and others >ho ha"e dra>n on 9R"i,StraussFs communicational model of culture 4ndeed, she deri"es from Mitchell the supposition that 9R"i,Strauss >as referring to >omen as Le.change commoditiesL D*$&*:)&0E, 6 one of the bases upon >hich she obJects to the eGuation of culture >ith patriarchy :et >hat +lshtain offers herself is a prime e.ample of commodity thinAing 7er hope for change, she says, rests on a particular understanding of the human subJect, as >ell as of social realities:

A person, after all, is not merely or e.clusi"ely Dif at allE an obJectified role,player or abstracted obJect of ine.orable la>s, but a thinAing, acting being engaged in particular relations >ith others >ithin a specific historic time and place To assimilate the public and the pri"ate Nthe theme of her booAO into uni"ersal la>s and abstracted structures reGuires Abstract Man, Abstract Woman, and Abstract #hild in turn Within this rarified, undifferentiated NsicO realm one searches in "ain for a recogni6able person D*$&*:)&1E She seeAs to restore Lthe female subJect L This is a "ery proper politics for a commodity economy 4n +lshtainFs account it >ould seem that a person is recogni6able as a subJect but not as an obJect 4n my description of the gift economies of Melanesia 4 ha"e, of course, found it useful to regard Fthe personF as an obJectification DFpersonificationFE of relationships 4n so far as people turn one set of relationships into another, they act Das indi"idual subJectsE to turn themsel"es into persons DobJectsE in the regard of others They obJectify themsel"es, one might say And this is indeed the point page30*0 Page 0*1 of maAing themsel"es acti"e agents; this is their destiny 9ife is not imagined to be >ithout supports: one acts to create the supports ;efore dealing further >ith the issue of agency, ho>e"er, it is necessary to comment on the related Guestion of >omenFs apparent FobJectF status in menFs e.changes At the heart both of the anthropological assumptions mentioned at the beginning of chapter ( and of these feminist Guestions lies an idiosyncratic Western metaphor for procreation Ma.ing )a)ies Melanesian >omen cannot be analy6ed as commodities in menFs e.changes for the ob"ious reason that these societies do not constitute commodity economies The negati"e can taAe an alternati"e form: Melanesian >omen do not maAe babies 4n commodity logic, "alue lies in the intrinsic attributes of things as >ell as in their Fe.changeF in the sense of marAet e.change ;oth men and >omen may be seen as ha"ing intrinsic properties Dmen maAe culture, >omen maAe babiesE; but menFs property in this case also has communicational functions analogous to e.change itself Dmen maAe culture because of2out of the fact that >omen maAe babiesE 4t is thus because persons are attributed >ith intrinsic Gualities that e.changing them creates "alues, so that there is an intimate, not an accidental, connection bet>een the t>o parts of 9R"i,StraussFs e.amination of >omen e.change Precisely in so far as items of use are being circulated, then gift e.change appears to ha"e the character of commodity marAet e.change, to ha"e distributi"e and integrati"e functions, and thus hold FsocietyF together 7arrisFs D*$&*:60E critiGue is pertinent She notes the ideological contrast contained in such arguments, bet>een FnaturalF relations in consumption as opposed to FsocialF relations created by the circulation of commodities 4t underlies the supposition that one can regard gift e.change as someho> a "ersion of commodity e.change This e.trapolation is especially >idespread in anthropological circles >hen it comes to the interpretation of marriage transactions % Typologies of Ainship systems are based on >hat happens to >omen in marriage 9ists of prescripti"e and preferential marriage rules, the fascination >ith the claims of cross cousins, details of the rights and debts encoded in classificatory Ain terminologyin relation to the analysis of marriage arrangements and the e.change of >omen, these concerns remain dominated by the assumption that there is an intention to the system as a >hole, namely to enable men to obtain >omen The marAet analogy presumably endures because it speaAs so directly and strongly to Western constructions 4 mean those that regard se.ual page30*1 Page 0*( attributes as inhering in persons and thus gi"ing them "alue, abo"e all in the capacity to reproduce 4t seems e"ident to us that other societies should be organi6ede"en though ours is notin terms of men ha"ing to gain access to >omenFs fertility 4t seems e"ident that control of fertility, embodied in >omen, presents itself as a problem 4t seems e"ident that >omen embody fertility When therefore people say that men e.change >omen bet>een themsel"esas they do in much of Melanesiathe ob"ious deduction is that >hat is at staAe is such control To regard these societies as attending to biology as >e comprehend it thus reinforces the reality

of our o>n constructs 4t leads only to one conclusion, >hich is also its premise: >hat differentiates men and >omen is their physiology, and marriage arrangements across the >orld ha"e as their purpose the management of female fertility And >hy do >e imagine that female fertility presents itself as ha"ing to be controlledM ;ecause of something else >e imagine, that >omen maAe babies @f course F>eF are all sophisticated enough to Ano> that genetics reGuires coupling and that people do not in that sense procreate alone ;ut the Western imagination plays >ith the idea that mothers maAe babies in the same >ay as a >orAer maAes a product, and that >orA is their "alue & 4n spite of the input of enabling technology, so to speaA, the >orAer Joins her labor >ith natural obJects in order to create a thing, an acti"ity that is potentially self,e.pressi"e but >hose embodiment is then, of course, e.tracted DFalienatedFE from her 4ndustrial production pro"ides a model of "alue con"ersions as stages in processes; any input of labor can be re"alued at the ne.t stage This is one source perhaps for parallel models of sociali6ation: the child produced by the mother must be separated from her, sociali6ed, and remolded in order to enter the >orld as an entity >ith its o>n "alue Persons Ffind themsel"esF As an indi"idual negotiating and managing interactions >ith others, each also thus acGuires an e.change DcommunicationalE "alue Theirdestiny is to become autonomous agents, and this refashioning of their persons reGuires multiple stages, each one remo"ing the person further and further a>ay from the original maAer, >ho may also be seen, of course, as outside the sphere of sociali6ation altogether in her manifestation of biological processes This is the significant sense in >hich >omen appear to maAe babies The baby is regarded as an e.tension of the motherFs tissue Women thus both pro"ide the basic ra> material and are >orAers at the earliest stage of societyFs re>orAing of persons This earliest stage is fore"er outgro>nhence our denigration of domesticitybut at the same time page30*( Page 0*6 pro"ides the basic material >ithout >hich there can be no de"elopment 4n other >ords, >omenFs fertility in its form of maternal >orA presents itself to Western industrial and marAet minds in terms of its natural status, as the prime source from >hich all else comes and as a resource to be "alued 4t seems reasonable that else>here men should staAe out claims to ra> materials and compete to possess them ;ut it is this "ery reasoning that must be scrutini6ed -or a comparati"e Guestion no> arises Gi"en that traditional Melanesian reasoning does not follo> these lines, then ho> do >e account for the pre"alent practice of men e.changing >omen bet>een themsel"esM 5o Melanesians not imagine that >omen maAe babiesM The second Guestion may be ans>ered briefly Women do not replicate ra> material, babies in the form of unfashioned natural resources, but produce entities >hich stand in a social relation to themsel"es The Western image of part of the motherFs nature being e"ident in the infant as also a part of nature, a theory of contiguity, hardly applies 4nstead, the Melanesian mother brings forth a being already in a social connection >ith her and thus different from her $ Minimally, no child replicates the motherFs Ainship status Moreo"er, Melanesian >omen are not seen as the sole agents of childbirth 4f mothers produce entities already in a social relation >ith themsel"es, this is because of the prior conJugal and marital e.changes >hich embody the acts that other agents ha"e also taAen #hildren are the outcome of the interactions of multiple others This is >hat >e >ould call a cultural construct The obJectifications of Melanesian cultureDsE can only present them as the obJects of relationships And the aesthetics of reification mean that children, far from being corporeally continuous >ith their parentsF bodies, embody their parentsF acts in another Dtheir o>nE form This may or may not be imagined as sharing substance As 4 ha"e argued, the act of birth is taAen as the point at >hich the multiple constitution of the child is made Ano>n <no>ledge is a process of analysis or re"elation #oncomitantly, the commodity "ie> of >omen as FnaturallyF obJects of menFs schemes because of their po>er to reproduce becomes understandable from certain assumptions inherent in practices of Western Ano>ledge Thus Western culture taAes it as a human fact that since mothers are FseenF to gi"e birth then they o>n or claim the offspring as theirs, or the children are assigned to them as a matter of course ;arnes D*$%0:%)E can e.trapolate as a uni"ersal Lthat the mother,child relation in nature is plain to seeL Nmy emphasisOS The maternal origin of the child is not at issue because it is F"isibleF, in the motherFs gi"ing page30*6 Page 0*% birth and her feeding of the ne>born The maternal relation is a patent biological fact, so that sociali6ation must taAe place subseGuent to it

4n the imaginings of these Melanesian societies, relations do not ha"e such an autonomic e.istence @ne relation is produced out of others This has to be the FAno>ledgeF that a motherFs acts con"ey 4n yielding the child, the Melanesian mother has yielded >hat is already anticipated as a social obJect ;ecause it is in relation to the mother that the father has to act, the mother in turn is a social agent >ith respect to the child 7ere reproduction becomes2e"inces sociality As >as e"ident on Malo Dchap (E, to see something is not to maAe patent the attributes of the obJect of sight, but to register or consume the effects of a performanceto see is a specific act in itself So too is re"elation What is made "isible must be carefully managed What a mother appears to produce >ill depend on her relation to it She may or may not be construed as a recipient of the fatherFs implantation of substance; the child may or may not be a recipient of the motherFs nurture ;ut in either case if maternity is re"elation, then as far as men are concerned this is accomplished not through taAing a>ay something by force that belongs to >omen Dcontrolling an innate fertilityE, but through ensuring that the >oman produces something other than herself That something other than herself than re"eals the relation bet>een them Dhusband and >ife; brother and sisterE 4t also constitutes it: because the child e.ists in a specific social relation >ith the mother, the husband2brother is sustained as conceptually distinct from the >ife2sister 7o>e"er, Melanesians are in the end culturally agnostic: such relations cannot be seen All that can be FseenF DconsumedE are their effects :et there remains something "ery seducti"e about the Western illusion 4t taAes the persuasi"e form of a fact, of a human certainty -rom an earlier "antage point, 4 >ould ha"e concurred >ith the 7aysFs interpretation of complementarity and assertion in male,female relations They >rite apropos /dumba, a tiny 7ighlands community to the north of Sambia: N4On recognition of their biological limitations, men must lea"e to >omen the tasA of bearing a child, Just as they can only but acAno>ledge >omenFs "ital contribution to the childFs physical being through the pro"ision of the childFs red, FsoftF parts and through the milA >ith >hich children are nourished So too, men depend on >omen throughout their li"es as pro"isioners Men themsel"es contribute the >hite, FhardF parts of the fetus; they also safeguard and maintain institutions that maAe social life possible *omen produce children+ as men cannot9 it remains for men to create society+ and page30*% Page 0*& to maAe of children the adults that society needs D7ays and 7ays *$&):)0',)0*, my emphasisE ;ut >e need to hold the thought that if >omen do indeed produce children, it is not because they can FmaAeF them >hile men cannot Women produce as a social act, and thus also because of menFs e.ertions in the matter And it cannot be on behalf of a conceptuali6ed FsocietyF that men e.ert themsel"es Societies Which 5o /ot /ame Themsel"es The first Guestion still hangs in the air Whate"er one might argue about the production of children, it nonetheless appears from an outsiderFs point of "ie> that men control society at large This seems Guantitati"ely apparent in the 7ighlands, >ith their elaboration of an often e.clusi"e public and collecti"e life 4 ha"e suggested "arious >ays in >hich >e might regard this acti"ity The point to reiterate here is that it is not menFs collecti"e acti"ity that Fcreates societyF or FmaAes cultureF, the premise upon >hich social "alues or ideologies are assumed to >orA to their interests at the e.pense of >omenFs :et >hile this is one premise of feminist inGuiry, feminist anthropologists ha"e also insisted that it is as much their proJect to address constructions of maleness as of femaleness, and that analysis must assume neither 4 ha"e conseGuently tried to breaA >ith the long legacy of Simone de ;eau"oirFs insights into Western gender relationsthe assumption that femaleness is someho> al>ays to be understood as deri"ati"e from or produced by >hat is established as the socially dominant form, namely maleness The Melanesian material at least does not present us >ith an image of men promoting male "alues that also become the "alues of society at large, and thereby simply using female "alues in counterpoint to their endea"ors ;ut this is a comple. issue to argue 4 begin here >ith the fact that many of their endea"ors are directed to>ards the same production of domestic Ainship, gro>th, and fertility as concern >omen 4n no simple sense is it the case that men and >omen Fha"eF separate models of their li"es /or is it the case that there is a simple dualistic split bet>een the stereotypes and images of FmenF as opposed to those of F>omenF The one is not al>ays passi"e in relation to the acti"e other, as de ;eau"oirFs insights imply MenFs collecti"e life

page30*& Page 0*$ is not to be understood therefore as a heightened or enhanced sociality that is the source of hegemonic "alues at once male and social 4t is precisely in the field of domestic Ainship that one cannot talA of men in the abstract; they are di"ided by their interests and relations #onseGuently, there are good anthropological reasons as >ell as feminist ones for not taAing menFs collecti"e acti"ities for granted The unthinAing conflation bet>een FtheirF collecti"ity and FourF society leads to the >rong Guestions -or it is >hen menFs collecti"e life is interpreted as a Aind of sanctioning or authoritati"e commentary on life in general that it is assimilated to our organi6ing metaphor, FsocietyF 4t is this metaphor >hich prompts Guestions about >hy men should be in the pri"ileged position of determining ideology or creating the "ery foundation of social order to their ad"antage *' 4 ha"e suggested that the forms of Melanesian collecti"e life are not adeGuately described through the Western model of a society, and that ho>e"er men are depicted it cannot be as authors of such an entity 8ather, collecti"e actions should be seen as one type of sociality, and as one type it therefore coe.ists >ith another, namely that sociality e"inced in particular, domestic relations The relation bet>een the t>o is that of alternation, not hierarchy The "alues of one are constantly pitted against the "alues of the other :et >hat perhaps confuses us is that the one is only Ano>able as a transformation of the other A further aspect of Western Ano>ledge practices must be recalled in this conte.t Western "ie>s of Ano>ledge rest on ideas of organi6ation and accumulation Dsee chap 1E; >e FAno>F things by bringing them into relation >ith more things <no>ledge thus inheres in the display of a relationship bet>een things and is con"incing by its systematics The more things that can be so correlated, the FbetterF the Ano>ledge 4ndeed, >e e"en ha"e an economic measure of Ano>ledge in the idea that the most efficient theory is the one >hich e.plains the most facts >ith the least e.penditure of energy 4ts po>er is e.perienced as a function of its consistency, >hich may be displayed as re"ealing an internal logic or some such 4 ha"e dra>n on the metaphor myself in referring to the logic of the commodity or gift economy @f course, the FlogicF should be understood as a contri"ance of the analytical tasA, of the acti"ity of organi6ing We should not mistaAe the producti"e insight that is gained for us from bringing things into relation for the manner in >hich 7ighlanders, say, Ju.tapose and bring into relation certain themes and "alues in the course of their ritual or political life These are not arenas of reflection and discourse in >hich, page30*$ Page 0)' as it is so often assumed in anthropological accounts, people achie"e a heightened a>areness of their o>n social life and "alues in general /e> relations may certainly be made manifest ;ut the participants do not simply gain further Ano>ledge on the character of the elements so related; Ano>ledge is recursi"e and cannot be accumulated 7ence may >e appreciate the contingent nature of the information >hich initiands recei"e during the course of ritualthe parado.ical or upside do>n Guality of the re"elations This is not Ano>ledge in the sense of penetrating and unco"ering truths about the attributes of things >hich then become classificatory schema for organi6ing those attributes What has been opened out is simply >hat already e.isted, but at the e.acting cost of opening it out DWagner *$%&:chap *E #onseGuently, participants do not gain pri"ileged Ano>ledge FaboutF the essential nature of male and female, say, or the constitution of clan ancestry 8ather, they acGuire another position from >hich to act +ach position is a particular position held >ith respect to specific others 4n Western terms, it >ould be a semantic parado. to say that relationships are not in themsel"es e"idence of collecti"ity The Western concept of society entails the proposition that relationships are ine"itably plural in themsel"es: any single instance contributes to the >ider regulating sociality of all arrangements of interactions bet>een persons ** All relationships, including dyadic ones, can thus be regarded as collecti"e in this "ie>, in that they in"ol"e communication bet>een separate, autonomous persons Das Findi"idualsFE *) 4t is the Western person as an indi"idual >ho thus stands in contradistinction to a society percei"ed as a.iomatically collecti"e, for it organi6es the interactions that taAe place bet>een numerous such indi"iduals At the same time, communicational possibilities are held to be intrinsic to all social life; indeed social life may be understood as a collecti"e act of communication Melanesian sociality, ho>e"er, distinguishes bet>een t>o types of relationship, collecti"e and particular The second class of relationships is noncollecti"e Moreo"er, >here interactions are characteri6ed by unmediated rather than mediated transactions, there need be no o"ert FcommunicationF bet>een the actors Thus >hen

mothers are credited >ith an autonomous potential for gro>th, or through his thoughts a motherFs brother curses a sisterFs child or a father impresses his face upon a fetus, these are noncollecti"e and in a sense noncommunicatory situations There is al>ays an outcome or effect to these interactions ;ut communicating them is to produce them in another DmediatedE form This is the corollary of the point that re"elation constitutes a page30)' Page 0)* performance, is itself an act #ommunication is, then, al>ays a contri"ance bet>een particular agents, and thus has its o>n character 7ence, any FunitaryF condition of the person has to be simultaneously communicated as a FmultipleF one, because that is >hat communication does to it The multiple, partible nature of personsF constitutions is re"ealed in its internal relations 4n the motherFs case, this is made e.plicit in DsayE the further conte.tuali6ation of herself >ithin en"eloping male e.changes 4t is only in retrospect that identification >ith the mother can be re"ealed as ha"ing had an effect on the life of the nurtured obJect of her regard ;ut conflation is not an absence of relationship And at no point are the products of relationships not concei"ed as themsel"es embodying relationships #hildren are not born as natural, asocial beings This returns us to the original point: social relationships are not constructed after the e"ent, so to speaA, through posterior sociali6ation @nly at highly speciali6ed symbolic moments can the unitary identity bet>een mother and child be apprehended The same general supposition is true of maleness and femaleness 4nitiation rituals that men stage to detach boys from the company of >omen are not usefully conceptuali6ed as steps in a sociali6ation process or as steps in the acGuisition of full uniform se.ual identity @n the contrary, menFs contri"ances appear closer to the attainment of political prestige or clan identity else>here in the 7ighlands acti"ities The rites do not FmaAe menF and do not FmaAe societyF Western postulates about the gender identity of >hole persons rest on a prioriti6ation of unity by contrast to the plural or multiple composition of persons as Melanesians depict them in their Ain transactions When Westerners regard persons as ha"ing to o"ercome polymorphous states, this is taAen as e"idence of a proper DhumanE dri"e to>ards internal consistency; in commodity logic, the FseparateF person is also the F>holeF person ;ut Melanesian social creati"ity is not predicated upon a hierarchical "ie> of a >orld of obJects created by natural process upon #hich social relationships are built Social relations are imagined as a precondition for action, not simply a result of it Sociality is thus not to be "isuali6ed as a superstructural elaboration of other forces, and collecti"e life does not e"ince sociality in an enhanced, hegemonic form My purpose in repeating some of these ethnographic points is simple 4t is to reiterate the obser"ation that Melanesian political and ritual acti"ities do not constitute a pri"ileged "antage point of commentary on the Frest of societyF, and that the "alues they promote cannot be page30)* Page 0)) understood as e.tendible beyond them simply by "irtue of their collecti"e character There is an epistemological dimension to this #ollecti"e action does not signify a superior systemati6ation, and this is true both of social relationships and of relationships bet>een different "alues or items of Ano>ledge 4n the Western >orld people imagine that there e.ists a system or an organi6ation of relationships that is a dominant source of "alues, and FimposesF its "alues on indi"iduals The constructionist "ie> of gender relations implies Just such The source may be seen eGually as society or as culture This abstract entity is in"ested >ith a life of its o>n; its con"entions are animated Thus >e concei"e abstract ideas Fdoing thingsF or Fha"ingF a force or effect on people; indeed, 4 ha"e dra>n on this as a literary de"ice in my presentation of Melanesian ideas @ne can name them De g , Fcommodity logicFE And systems can then be credited >ith intention, a notion from >hich functionalist arguments fore"er ha"e to e.tricate themsel"es We may recogni6e the root metaphor Dchap 6E: the Western person is a microcosm not of social relations Dother personsE but of social con"entions 7o>e"er, the further idea that persons o>n themsel"es also presents this entity in proprietary terms -or the idiom of microcosm >e might substitute the more culturally appropriate idiom that persons possess social con"entions, and social con"entions possess them

Western people imagine themsel"es as double proprietors @n the one hand they naturally o>n themsel"es, and their personal attributes, including their gender @n the other hand, their capacity for communication >ith one another is based on their common o>nership of a culture ;ut if they o>n culture, culture also o>ns them Proprietorship thus introduces a subJect,obJect relation, in >hich either may become a thing in the hands of the other 7ence the social contract "ie> of culture as the collecti"e, superstructural "alues of social life to >hich indi"iduals >illingly subordinate themsel"es, in order to communicate >ith one another, implies that the culture is presented to them in specific, reified form 4t stands as a thing o"er and beyond them This is contained in the idea of common o>nership As commonly shared among its members, culture Dor societyE must also ha"e a holistic character The notion of "alues held in common mediates bet>een the "ie> of culture as the collecti"e organi6ation of plural relationships and as the product of homogeneous, FsharedF understandings Thus Westerners can speaA of Fa cultureF, Fa societyF As a singular entity that is o>ned, page30)) Page 0)0 culture or society can conseGuently be concei"ed as a thing that the o>ners ha"e made or authored This gi"es rise to the further supposition that >hat appears as common o>nership may instead disguise the fact that it >as created by some and not others; on the others it is merely imposed The illusion that culture, liAe society, is someho> authored does not stop at recogni6ing the outcomes of human action; it may lead to attributing those outcomes to a singular agent Since Guite sensibly this cannot be credited to one indi"idual, it may >ell be credited to a singular category, as in the supposition that it is FmenF >ho maAe culture Such Western ideas yield their o>n double critiGue of other systems -irst, >ho is the author >ho produces the culture and thus o>ns itM This is a source of feminist Guestions about patriarchy, the rule of the father, for he >ho o>ns culture displays that o>nership as a superior regulating or organi6ing force Second, >hat is produced is also consumed, and this is the manner in >hich >e imagine culture to be consumed by the indi"idual, transmuted as that indi"idualFs Fe.perience of F "alues and relations The Guestion becomes ho> it is consumed; to >hat e.tent are those >ho do not o>n it ne"ertheless forced to acAno>ledge ideas and "alues created by anotherM Thus personsF e.perience of culture, in this "ie>, may be at odds >ith their subJecti"e o>nership of themsel"es and particularly of their bodies Da po>erful source of feminist critiGue and countercritiGue o"er >hether or not FbodiesF are held to lie outside cultureE 4n the search for change, radical adJustment may seem possible either through altering the relations of production, that is, creating different o>ners and authors, or through using the dissonance of e.perience DconsumptionE to sho> the inJustice of the impositions These critiGues arise from the same proJect that attempts to e.plain by bringing into relation, to systemati6e by sho>ing interaction, to re"eal the inherent logic of social arrangements, since that "ery consistency can appear suspiciously uniform, suggesting it could be the outcome of singular and specific interests They are eGually the grounds for our Ano>ing that >e li"e in a society and practice culture We both name the o>ners DFthe culture of the I or :FE and name >hat it is that they o>n Dtheir FcultureF or FsocietyFE 4f Melanesian systems of Ano>ledge do not lead to this conclusion, then they can ha"e no name for the con"entional ordering of humanAind They ha"e no name for the origin of >hat >e >ould regard as cultural constraints on the >ay people beha"e, in that they do not DcannotE personify that origin as this or that category of persons FmaAing page30)0 Page 0)1 cultureF A person as a cause Din the sense in >hich 4 used the term in chap *'E is only a cause of another personFs acts, and cannot be conceptuali6ed as the cause of con"ention as such These ideas do not allo> the possibility that men are en"isaged as the authors of society2culture at >omenFs e.pense This does not mean that there are no con"entions or constraints 4t does mean that con"ention is not seen as authored and thus percei"ed as a system >orAing in the interests of some rather than others There is neither an abstract author nor a concrete author 4n abstract terms, gender is not construed as a role FimposedF on indi"iduals Fby cultureF #on"ersely, there is no problem about membership Fin societyF or oneFs fitness to participate in the social contract There is no an.iety, pace Mead, about >hether or not oneFs attributes >ill Gualify one for this or that role An.iety, so to speaA, is not so much about the control of beha"ior DpeopleFs FfreedomFE but about ho> their beha"ior >ill appear to others Dtheir FperformanceFE And in concrete terms, it is not thought that pri"ileged roles are conferred by superior indi"iduals upon themsel"es >hile, from their position of po>er, they confer inferior roles on others 4n the Western "ie>, >hat appears a freedom for the

former is subJugation for the latter, so that men may be seen as imposing their definitions of gender on >omen The constraints, as 4 ha"e described them for Melanesia, must be understood instead as the aesthetic constraints of form People cannot help e"incing gender in >hat they do This means that they a.iomatically succumb to the e"aluations and Judgments that a specific form entails An agent can choose to act, but in acting can only act in a particular >ay 4t is impossible in these systems to taAe action in a general or nonspecific manner: all acts are particular acts ;y the same toAen, in the Melanesian "ie> to be an agent is to deploy oneFs generali6ed capacity to a particular end Gender differentiates types of sociality such that the structure of same,se. bonds has a separate producti"e outcome from that of cross,se. bonds Since the one is an alternati"e to the other, 4 ha"e argued that the generali6ed potential for the unitary, homogeneous construction of persons e.ists only in relation to their multiple construction Moreo"er, any one contrast can be re"ealed as a refraction of prior contrasts and combinations The condition of multiple constitution, the person composed of di"erse relations, also maAes the person a partible entity: an agent can dispose of parts, or act as a part Thus F>omenF mo"e in marriage as parts of clans; thus FmenF circulate obJectified parts page30)1 Page 0)( of themsel"es among themsel"es 4n the end, menFs and >omenFs domains are not socially distinct *0 8ather, each may act in a same,se. or cross,se. >ay, in conte.ts that are al>ays conceptually transient Time, duration, and seGuence are as important to form as they are to the gift :et there seems to be a difference in menFs and >omenFs scope for action @ften men appear to deri"e a double benefit 4n the 7ighlands, for e.ample, men enJoy both a collecti"e life and the relations of domestic Ainship, >hereas >omen appear confined to the latter ;ut this dualism is misleading #hapter *' indicated that >omenFs counterpart to male collecti"e life, menFs unity as a body of men, >as their o>n female unity The generali6ed capacities that they e"ince could not be subsumed under the rubric of domestic relations The difference bet>een men and >omen concei"ed in these terms is that >omen are held to e"ince such capacity >ithin the unity of their singular bodies, >hereas men as often manifest it in the replication of liAe bodies We are dealing >ith >hat looAs liAe a s>itch in scale then, and indeed menFs replication of same,se. relations among themsel"es has a runa>ay character to it ;ut 4 ha"e not simply returned to the idea that menFs social acti"ity imitates DappropriatesE >omenFs bodily capacity to maAe babies >ithin themsel"es We must get the mathematics right Women do not FnaturallyF present themsel"es as intrinsically single or unitary entities; >e ha"e seen that that condition in"ol"es an internal alignment of relations and is also something to be achie"ed Perhaps >omenFs bodies are percei"ed as unitary and singular because they metaphori6e those replicated relations of male gro>th *1 4n the phraseology of appropriation one >ould say that their social acti"ity in production and reproduction eGually imitates, appropriates, and defines menFs 5omination 7o> then are >e to understand all those conte.ts, especially marAed in the ethnographies of 7ighlands societies De g , 8eay *$($; ;erndt *$6); Meggitt *$6(; and see =osephides *$&)E, in >hich men are reported as asserting dominance o"er >omenM They demand obedience, roughride >omenFs concerns, striAe and beat their bodies -reGuently this is Guite e.plicit as to gender: it is by "irtue of men being men that >omen must listen to them :et e"erything that has been argued to this point suggests that domination cannot rest on the familiar Dto Western eyesE structures of hierarchy, control, the organi6ation of relations, or on the idea that at staAe is the creation of society or the e.ploitation page30)( Page 0)6 of a natural realm, and that in the process certain persons lose their right to self,e.pression More accurately, menFs acts of domination cannot symboli6e such a structure, for it is not an obJect of Melanesian attention 4n short, hegemony is not to be "isuali6ed in these terms

@f course, F>eF may still >ish to maAe up our o>n minds We could argue, for instance, that alternation in fact conceals hierarchy, or that the representation of Ano>ledge as noncumulati"e and recursi"e conceals its authoritati"e aspects, as indeed canons of reciprocity ha"e been interpreted as concealing e.ploitation We may still >ish to regard men as creating their o>n li"es at >omenFs e.pense MaAing up our o>n minds al>ays remains an option; the only obser"ation >ould be that one has to understand the Melanesian constructs first before taAing them apart And >e >ould ha"e to sGuare menFs assertions of dominance >ith the eGually salient impression that many 7ighlands ethnographers ha"e recei"ed that FF>hile men hold higher status, and >omen may in fact be con"inced of their inferiority, >omen command a po>er that belies the tenets of ideology 4n those conte.ts >hich in"ol"e the coordination of male and female interests, there is, to all intents and purposes, an eGuality bet>een the se.esL D9ipuma *$%$:(0E :et a disJunction bet>een the ideal and the real or bet>een ideology and practice is in the first place a disJunction bet>een different types of data >ithin the anthropological narrati"e This differentiation is taAen as e"idence for >hat might be Judged as concealed or re"ealed in the culture ;ut again >e ha"e to be clear that >e are talAing about >hat the outsider >ould regard as concealed, and not about the relationships and structures that the actors deliberately conceal from themsel"es To repeat an obser"ation made earlier, people cannot conceal from themsel"es >hat they do not Ano> The end of chapter 6 suggested that in a gift economy those >ho dominate are those >ho determine the manner of relations created by the circulation of obJects 4 no> >ish to di"est that statement of its inappropriate personification, as though the issue >ere the authoring of those relations 4 >ant to suggest a >ay in >hich >e might both taAe into account Melanesian assumptions about the nature of social life and unpacA those assumptions to indicate a form of domination that people do FAno>F There are indeed situations in >hich men Gua men dominate >omen Gua >omen, though there is great "ariation across Melanesia, and the grounds of domination apply to both se.es -or the moment, 4 obser"e that acts of dominance consist in taAing ad"antage page30)6 Page 0)% of those relations created in the circulation of obJects and o"erriding the e.change of perspecti"es on >hich e.change as such rests This is not a return to the assumption discarded in the scrutiny of the gift, that relations are someho> neutral, and that indi"iduals merely play them off against one another in pursuit of their o>n e.ogenously defined ends We do not ha"e to resurrect the strategist >ith choice and self,interest, >ho simply uses Fthe systemF to his or her ad"antage @n the contrary, it seems that there is a systemic ine"itability about domination and a particular ad"antage afforded men ;ut, by the same toAen, acts of domination are tantamount to no more than taAing ad"antage of this ad"antage The ine"itability lies in the con"entions go"erning the form >hich social action taAes Acts are inno"ati"e, for they are al>ays constituted in the capacity of the agent to act Ffor oneselfF 4t is only in acting thus as oneself that others are in turn constituted in oneFs regard This is a technicality not a sentiment: it is not altruism 4ndeed, the agent is also the obJect of anotherFs coercion in so acting, and an act is only e"ident in being impressed upon further persons @n this cultural premise, action is inherently forceful in its effects, for e"ery act is a usurpation of a Aind, substituting one relationship for another To act from a "antage point is thus also in a sense to taAe ad"antage This entails a beha"ioral ethos of asserti"eness and one >hich applies eGually >ell to >omen as men ;ut beyond this, men often find themsel"es ha"ing an ad"antage >omen lacA To sho> this ad"antage it >ill be necessary to dismantle certain Melanesian concepts Since 4 ha"e been concerned to despatch Western assumptions about society as an obJect of thought in Melanesian life, perhaps a starting place >ould be the counterpart arithmetic that 4 ha"e been at such pains to contri"e 4t >ill be recalled that the duo or pair is opposed to its single antithesis, the one or the many As male and female, men and >omen form a pair, each capable of eliciting action from the other 4 ha"e also argued that one body is by contrast conceptually unitary, >hether in a singular or a plural form, and encompasses future relations >ithin itself ;ut the conceptual eGuation bet>een one and many hides a crucial sociological difference The factor that is hidden is one of its terms, namely plurality itself Single men can taAe refuge in the body of men; a man sees his acts replicated and multiplied in the acts of liAe others This is the basis of those situations in >hich men appear to dominate >omen 0ut the domination does not stand for anything elsefor page30)%

Page 0)& culture o"er nature or >hate"erand does not ha"e to engage our sympathy on that score 4t is itself 4t inheres in all the small personal encounters in >hich one man finds himself at an ad"antage because of other men at his bacA Among the substitutions a"ailable to him, as it >ere, is the replication of all,male relations in the plural form >hich enlarges the capacity of each indi"idual This becomes its o>n reason for forcefulness 4n a sense, the forcefulness al>ays has to appear larger than the persons >ho register its effect Such asymmetry turns rules into penalties, the enclosure of domestic life into confinement, and the cause of menFs o>n acti"ity into the >ounds of someone >ho is beaten and gi"en pain for it To put it this >ay Aeeps faith >ith the Melanesian postulate that it is agents, not systems, >ho act The hidden sociological dimension is that collecti"e relations aggrandi6e indi"idual acts This is a "ery different proposition from suggesting that men are thereby someho> acting on behalf of cultural con"entions or that society accords them dominance 7o>e"er, at this Juncture, 4 feel that 4 really am >riting against the grain of the language in >hich 4 >rite; conseGuently >hat follo>s is offered >ith hesitation ;ut let me remind the reader that 4 ha"e not a"oided the Guestion of oppression and constraint per se The rules, the form of domestic life, the ha"ing to inflict pain: these constraints are part of an oppressi"e aesthetic They lie in the cultural form in >hich people recogni6e the character of e"ents and relations 4f the aesthetic discriminates bet>een the se.es it is not because one or other se. authored them That >e might thinA so is an artifact of the con"entionally substituti"e nature of action itself, such that one se. often appears to be substituting its o>n interests for those of another "ctive and passive MenFs ad"antage does not of itself lie in the constitution of action; men and >omen may act >ith eGual assertion At once 4 encounter the literary problem Going against the grain of a language is going against its o>n aesthetic con"entions: ho> one maAes certain forms appear 4 ha"e claimed that Melanesian men and >omen do not stand in an irreducibly acti"e and passi"e relation to one another 4ndeed, as the analysis of cause and effect relations indicated, since being a Dpassi"eE cause is to ha"e been at an earlier stage an Dacti"eE agent, the positions are re"ersible ;ut >hen it comes to >riting about concrete instances, the symmetry seems to disappear 4t >as argued earlier in this chapter that there is a sense in >hich page30)& Page 0)$ menFs collecti"e endea"ors are directed to>ards the same reproduction of relations of domestic Ainship as concern >omen And here lies the intractable Western aesthetic 4t conJures a Guite inappropriate gender symbolism 4f 4 say that menFs e.changes are oriented to>ards their >i"esF domestic concerns, then the statement >ill be read as men appropriating those concerns and turning them to their o>n use 4f 4 say that >omenFs domestic >orA is oriented to>ards their husbandsF e.changes, then this >ill be read con"ersely, not as their appropriating menFs acti"ities but as being subser"ient to them 4 Ano> of no narrati"e de"ice that >ill o"ercome this sAe>ing, because it inheres in the "ery form of the ideas in >hich >e imagine menFs and >omenFs po>ers @n the one hand it is important to appreciate Just ho> Melanesian men and >omen may be seen to be the causes of one anotherFs acts @n the other hand, in order to scrutini6e the relationship bet>een these ideas and domination as such, the one mo"e to a"oid is >orAing into the analysis of these ideas any assumption about domination :et the acti"e2passi"e DsubJect2obJectE sAe>ing of Western gender symbolism maAes this separation hard to sustain 4 repeat the point 4f 4 say 7ighlands men are regarded as the cause of their >i"esF gi"ing birth, then this >ill imply in the mind of the Western reader that they e.ercise a superior agency 4f 4 say that 7ighlands >omen are regarded as the cause of menFs transactions >ith one another, then this >ill imply their inferior, obJect,liAe status, as instruments of menFs e.changes or as pro"isioners of them This aesthetic impasse deri"es from the Western procli"ity to personify con"ention, to seeA the authors of rules, and to reduce images to dogma TaAe the specific e.ample of +astern 7ighlands beliefs about procreation: indigenously >omen are said to be "essels for men >ho implant the fetus A >omanFs act of gi"ing birth is thus an act FforF her husband; this can be read by the outsider as male dogma 4ndeed, it gi"es rise to anthropological interpretations that are parado.ical from a Melanesian point of "ie>, namely that the >oman is acting in a passi"e >ay #oncomitantly, male dogma is also read into the >ay in >hich men imitate the act of birth in the course of initiating boys @utsiders do not consider this female dogma or men as passi"e in this conte.t; it may e"en be reported as a Aind of afterthought that the purpose of the rites >as to maAe the boys into husbands FforF the >omen

The Melanesian connection bet>een cause and effect splits the inacti"e cause2effect from the acti"e agent, >ho may be male or female ;ut page30)$ Page 00' Westerners find it almost impossible not to regard the se.es in a permanent relation of asymmetry And this is by "irtue of the pri"ilege they accord collecti"e action that they can FseeF DmenFs transactions and cult acti"itiesE by contrast >ith that they cannot D>omenFs internal capacity for gro>thE To the obser"er, the one appears acti"e and the other passi"e #oupled >ith this e"ident acti"ity by men is the indigenously coerci"e nature of all cause2effect relations, that others ha"e to be caused to be a cause of oneFs o>n acti"ity #oercion, asymmetry, and collecti"e action all come together in the potent image >ith >hich this chapter opened: the energy that Melanesian men put into the e.ercise of e.changing >omen bet>een themsel"es in marriage, and one might add all their e.ertions to ensure that childbirth is effected properly *( We find it ne.t to inconcei"able to imagine this as male "ulnerability or helplessness And if >e did cede the point, it >ould be to regard men as made helpless by Fthe systemF in >hich they are trapped, not by the indi"idual >omen for >hom they do these things Whate"er is done, the Western gender difference bet>een men and >omen compels the reading that the one DfemaleE is passi"e to the otherFs DmaleE acti"ity ?an ;aal courageously attempts to breaA out of this impasse >ith an optimistic generali6ation on the e.change of >omen: LAll the e"idence >e ha"e tends to confirm that they are e.changed because they agree to be e.changedL D*$%(:%6E !nfortunately he reduces this to an argument about >omen needing protection and thus lays himself open to the charge that he is simply describing the conni"ance of the dominated /onetheless, he obser"es, N;Oy the simple act of agreeing to be gi"en a>ay in marriage to a man of another group the >oman, >ife to one and sister to the other, has manoeu"ered herself into an intermediary position allo>ing her to manipulate T>o men protect her The one o>es a debt to the other and the other o>es one to her D*$%(:%%E The protection is in her interests as a future mother; although he refers later to >omenFs self,selected role of care,gi"ing, he regards this as rooted in >omenFs natural procreati"e function *6 ;ut he has here inad"ertently depicted the conditions under >hich >omen, liAe men, indeed act as agents, as the pi"ot of relationships 8ubin pointed out ho> narro> it is to focus only on the e.change of >omen: Lse.ual access, genealogical statuses, lineage names and ancestors, rights and peoplemen, >omen and childrenNare e.changedO in concrete systems of social relationshipsL D*$%(:*%%, original empha, page300' Page 00* sisE Thus >e should properly set the e.change of >omen in marriage alongside other circulations of items, including men and aspects of their relationships An asymmetric sAe>ing bet>een transactors and transacted, ho>e"er, remains 4t continues to appear that men are still the principal transactors, e"en if they transact >ith parts of themsel"es ;ut this is bacA to front 8ather, as is true of much of the 7ighlands, it is clear that in all transactions men are in fact transacting >ith parts of themsel"es When >omen obJectify this partibility, they stand for a component of clanship or for assets >hich a body of men possesses: in short it is >hen they are e.changed that >omen are seen as aspects of menFs social identities 7ere is 8ubinFs conclusion: N4Of it is >omen >ho are being transacted, then it is the men >ho gi"e and taAe them >ho are linAed, the >oman being a conduit of a relationship rather than a partner to it The e.change of >omen does not necessarily imply that >omen are obJectified, in the modern sense, since obJects are imbued >ith highly personal Gualities ;ut it does imply a distinction bet>een gift and gi"er D*$%(:*%1E 4 do not further labor the point that >omen are not being obJectified Fin the modern senseF, that is, being rendered as things alienable from persons WomenFs "alue as >ealth, so e"ident in 7agen for instance, does not denigrate their subJecti"ity #hapter 1 sho>ed ho> 7agen FpersonsF Di e , agents: moral entities, thinAing, responsible, socially oriented and autonomousE learn the reciprocities of particular interactions >ithin the household and do not ha"e to pro"e themsel"es in a public sphere Women being the FobJectsF of e.change relationships are not depri"ed of such autonomy Moreo"er, 7agen menFs transformation of themsel"es into

prestige,bearing name,carriers is not ultimately about fulfilling themsel"es as subJects #eremonial e.change >orAs to maAe them obJects in the regard of others And men are also construed as aspects of >omenFs social identities 4n other >ords, it >ould be an error to see certain people as al>ays the obJects of othersF transactions and eGually an error to assume their natural, FfreeF form is as subJects or agents @ne might put it that people do not e.ist in a permanent state of either subJecti"ity or obJecti"ity The agent is a conduit @ne problem >ith the Western "ie> of cultures or societies that >ould regard these entities epitomi6ed in collecti"e action is that a Aind of permanent subJecti"ity or agency becomes ascribed to certain actions rather than others Thus certain forms of acti"ity appear as FinstitutionsF >here others do not #ertain institutions in turn appear salient or page300* Page 00) pre"alent, the pre"alence of men e.changing >omen bet>een themsel"es being a notable e.ample :et from the Melanesian "ie> this is no more nor less pre"alent an acti"ity than >omen feeding children or >orAing in the gardens These actions all reGuire e.ertions of agency in Melanesian eyes Where the agent is defined by gender, then it is the one se. that FcausesF the other to act The cause is al>ays technically inert or passi"e but >ith respect to that agent or that occasion and not as a general condition The asymmetry is al>ays there, but menFs and >omenFs occupation of these respecti"e positions is al>ays transient At the heart of the asymmetry is the fact that an agent is not concei"ed as capable of appropriating anotherFs acts @ne can only maAe another person act, and thus become oneself a Dpassi"eE cause for that acting WomenFs gi"ing birth, as an act, cannot be taAen o"er by men: men can only inter"ene as causing the action As >e sa> earlier, a mother is coerced into becoming a mother, for herself The antecedent condition for such interactions as they concern the se.es must be the e"er open possibility that the one is recepti"e to the other, each able to register the otherFs effects, Fto be madeF into an agent +ach must as it >ere be constitutionally "ulnerable to the opposite se. The dependency of male ritual on a female presence, of male health on female caretaAers, can thus be interpreted as part of a deliberate "ulnerability or openness @ne se. is regarded as ha"ing a direct effect on the body of the other: >hat is held permanent is the possibility of encompassment, and this may be presented in images of either maleness or femaleness Thus >hat is enacted in the initiation seGuences of the +astern 7ighlands societies described in earlier chapters is a strictly momentary capacity; the eGuations in"ol"ed may be effecti"e only for the course of the ritual itself Dcompare 9e>is *$&'E They do not necessarily Fe.pressF "alues to be found outside this conte.t but are enactments of a specific agency At the same time, by "irtue of the fact that the acts are secluded, Juniors gro> and seniors are strengthened +nclosure here is crucial, the entire body of men being in a sense FcontainedF, an entity distinct from yet encompassed or enclosed by something that is not itself This distincti"eness is established by those female elements positioned as e.terior and as en"eloping them *% The absent females encompass the DpresentE male body Their potential presence is e"oAed by the menFs actions 4t is pertinent that there can be no mediated e.change )et#een the en"eloping and the en"eloped entities: the one only eJects or yields the other, or the other gro>s +ither process establishes the distincti"eness page300) Page 000 of >hat is contained from the en"eloping container ;ut the former does not deri"e its social identity from that e.terior source: the contained entity has a separate identity, precisely because it is not a part of the container >ithin >hich it lies The independent life of the en"eloped entity is e"inced in the >ay it s>ells and alters the shape of the outer container The contained element thus also appears to gro> FautonomouslyF, as is true of the gro>th induced inside a cult house 4ndi"idually the participants are supposed to display a process that >ill ha"e altered the appearance of their bodies; collecti"ely, there is a s>elling of the body of men; they ha"e become more numerous as a single body, gro>n by >hat they gro> The difference in si6e could not be registered >ithout a unitary construct to re"eal increase as an internal fact And an enabling condition for the unitary identity of the male participants is their categorical e.clusion from >omen, >ith >hom there can be no communication, no mediation Women are in this sense a passi"e cause of menFs actions, as >ell as the persons on >hom the effects of menFs acti"ities >ill e"entually be displayed

We should not mistaAe this unmediated relationship bet>een men and >omen as anything more than pro"isional The positions can be re"ersed WomenFs capacity for maternal gro>th is encompassed by the men >ho are e.cluded from the moment of childbirth Their e.changes are analogously en"eloping or enclosing *& And it is crucial that the e.changes remain bet>een men This pro"ides a Aind of outer co"ering of social interaction: for it is also crucial that the >omen do not enter into a mediated e.change #ith the men Absence of mediation bet>een the se.es creates the condition for >omenFs agency as gro>ers, of themsel"es2their children A producti"e separation is en"isaged, then, bet>een male and female acti"ities >here male e.changes en"elop >omenFs internal capacity for gro>th *$ The gro>n product, the ne>born child, has in turn an effect on the status of those e.changes, often in 7ighlands societies compelling men to taAe further action among themsel"es, in maAing child payments or being solicitous to>ard their affines ;irth in"ariably FcausesF a fresh cycle of male transactions 4 repeat the ethnographic detail in order to emphasi6e that this is an asymmetry of form The form delineates the positioning of the agent >ith respect to both cause and outcome 4t is not that agents FcreateF the asymmetry; they enact it 4n summary: being acti"e and passi"e are relati"e and momentary positions; in so far as the rele"ant categories of actors are FmaleF and FfemaleF then either se. may be held to be the cause of the otherFs acts; and the condition is e"inced in the perpetual page3000 Page 001 possibility of the one being "ulnerable to the e.ploits of the other or able to encompass the other The conclusion must be that these constructions do not entail relations of permanent domination We can no> delineate the ad"antage that men do indeed taAe up for themsel"es in an unbalanced >ay and thus at >omenFs e.pense 4t >ill turn out to be created by this "ery alternation of "ulnerability and is bound up >ith the aesthetics of encompassment: >ith the fact that in a same,se. unitary condition one body encompassed by another, >hich is also the other on >hom its effects are registered, is held to gro> thereby ,nterpersonal domination1 4n so far as they stand acti"e and passi"e in relation to each other, the acts of men and >omen do not in themsel"es e"ince permanent domination That one agent beha"es >ith another in mind is >hat defines his2her agency ;ut a different >ay of putting this >ould be to suggest that e"ery act is an act of domination: >hat is momentary is merely the e.perience of being in a position to act -or an act al>ays >orAs to substituti"e effect As 4 ha"e defined it, agents substitute one set of relations for another, and it >as suggested that among the substitutions particularly a"ailable to men is the possibility of displacing other relationships >ith an orientation to same,se. acti"ity itself The possibility e.ists in the plural nature of their collecti"e ties We might imagine >omenFs comparable substitutions in terms of their retention of food or the obJects of gro>th, preser"ing their bodily integrity ;ut there is more to this in menFs case than simply the Guantity of bodies As is true of all same,se. capacities, the unitary condition of all,male acti"ity must be a cause of gro>th, and each participant male >ill e"ince that gro>th in himself Men taAe ad"antage of the men at their bacA; but the men at their bacA also compel them to do Just so, because the indi"idual also contains them as it >ere >ithin himself 4 >rite >ith particular reference to the 7ighlands, but the point can be clarified from ;atesonFs celebrated discussion of SepiA schismogenesis ;ateson analy6es t>o types of schismogenesis in relationships, complementary beha"ior that reinforces differentiation Das bet>een partners playing male and female to one anotherE and symmetrical ri"alry Das bet>een competing moieties >ho prompt each other to an e.cessi"e demonstration of their similar strengthsE D*$(&:*%&*%$E 7is initial terms >ere FdirectF and FdiagonalF D*$(&:)%*E, >hich recalls the difference bet>een unmediated and mediated transactions 4n direct dualism, page3001 Page 00( e"erything can be grouped into pairs, such as elder2younger or male2female; in diagonal dualism, one finds the oppositeness of eGuals -or the 4atmul conte.t in >hich he >as >riting, he stressed ho> diagonal DsymmetricalE relationships >ere imbued >ith aggressi"e display; the feature of direct DcomplementaryE relationships that held his attention >as dominance and submissi"eness in beha"ior +ither Aind of beha"ior could pro"oAe schismogenic response 4t is >orth adding that ;ateson discerned his t>o forms of schismogenesis simultaneously at >orA >ithin the one institution of initiation 8i"al moieties competed >ith one another in the bullying of no"ices, pro"oAing each other further to similar brutalities; at the same time,

bet>een no"ices and initiators, each dro"e the other to e.aggerated forms of differentiated beha"ior, the one FfemaleF to the otherFs FmaleF 4n effect, ;ateson describes the t>o Ainds of elicitatory interactions that gender difference createsin same,se. DsymmetricalE and cross,se. DcomplementaryE modes 7e postulates that in either case one condition in a person e.cites a response in another, so that each partner dra>s apart in an e.aggerated >ay +ither similarity or difference may be pro"ocati"e ;ut 4 ha"e suggested that there is in addition a systemic asymmetry to interactions, >hich leads to a third state of affairs @ne could imagine it as the agent being capable of auto,schismogenesis That is, an act in itself is an e.aggeration of a position >hich an agent taAes, for him or herself, in respect to others Their passi"ity constitutes cause2e.citation2outcome @ne does not need to be pro"oAed by the outrageous actions of others in order to be outrageous in relation to them Their e.istence is sufficient pro"ocation As far as relations bet>een men and >omen are concerned, and especially in the 7ighlands, e.cess pro"oAed by the inherent asymmetry bet>een an agent and the outcome registers the effects of that agency We must remember that a cause may be eGuated >ith an effect, that is, the same persons >ho compel an agent to act may also be the registers of the action Apart from the formal asymmetry of the agent and the cause2effect of his2her acts, a Guantitati"e ineGuality can arise The person >ho registers those acts may be too Fsmall F There ceases to be a match bet>een the agent and the aesthetic capacity of another to sho> the effects of that agency That is, the e.change of perspecti"es is thro>n out of balance #onseGuently, the person2relationship that is the outcome of the acts is percei"ed as an insufficient medium And that perception of diminution is, of course, in turn a conseGuence of the e.aggeration itself page300( Page 006 Such loss of balance may affect relations bet>een men 4n relations bet>een men and >omen it may >ell be percei"ed as ine"itable and to be most acute under those "ery conditions of male gro>th >hich men perform FforF >omen Women appear insufficient by the "ery acts that maAe menFs gro>th not only something they accomplish for themsel"es but also for the >omen they ha"e in mind Their insufficiency is thus anticipated in the enlarged sphere of all,male relations, >here each indi"idual man becomes in himself a register of the replication of men: in this enlarged form, as a FbigF man, he is confronted by FsmallF >omen and children >ho carry the burden of registering his si6e )' 7e is dependent on them; his strength can only taAe the form of their >eaAness This 4 belie"e is a precondition for acts of male e.cess 4n a double sense, then, the plurality of menFs collecti"e life may lead to men dominating >omen @n the one hand they react to the inadeGuacy of a situation in >hich the gro>th of their self,esteem must be registered in the persons of >omen They are as it >ere compelled to e.aggerate their "antage point @n the other hand, they can e.ploit the imbalance they percei"e >ith some impunity, in so far as they can count on the support of other men The result, 4 >ould argue, are acts of domination that typically emerge in menFs day,to,day and one,to,one encounters @ccasions of group "indicti"eness are not special to relations >ith >omen ;ut characteristic of that cross,se. relationship in se"eral societies is an asserti"eness in interpersonal relations that o"errides >hat is other>ise normally an e.change of "ie>points The Justification for men demanding submission from >omen is not that they are pro"oAed by >omenFs FnaturalF or permanent submissi"eness into e.tremes of beha"ior, but it is >omenFs temporary submissi"eness that re"eals the effect that men, Gua men, ha"e upon them All effects must be reinforced, because by their character effects are ine"itably transient 4t >ould be misleading, ho>e"er, to conclude that men are dri"en by an identity need to become F>hole personsF 4t seems that Melanesian ideas pose for men not the e.istential problem of >hether men are men but rather the problem of the multiple personho> both to act and to be the cause of the actions of others, and ho> thus to ensure that oneFs actions ha"e indeed taAen place The 7agen case can be taAen up for the last time What is a part of a multiple self that a man contributes to an ongoing domestic relationship >ith his >ife, in ceremonial e.change becomes his total identity page3006 Page 00% "is,P,"is other men 4n the former, he sustains a relationship >ith a differentiated social other; in the latter, >ith persons >ho are similar to himself, a replication that brings the possibility of a measure bet>een them The "alue of collecti"e e"ents becomes rhetorically Ju.taposed to the "alue of domestic production 4ndeed, that sphere may e"en be seen as destructi"e; too much time at home compromises a manFs group

participation 4t is from this, as 9ederman Din pressE has noted for Mendi, that ineGuality creeps into daily interactions, that one spouseFs interests seem more pressing than anotherFs The o"erriding nature of menFs claims, the urgency of their concerns, is established in their future claims, as men, to be part of a collecti"ity of men Tri"ial as domestic disputes may appear to an outsider, they indicate the e.tent to >hich people suffer from one anotherFs e.cesses Men much more so than >omen e.ert force in interpersonal relations, and abo"e all in the conJugal relationship MenFs e.ertions ha"e a cost in terms of the chances of peopleFs physical sur"i"alas true of politics as of ritual, although in transforming themsel"es into agents of special Ainds, the cost is borne by themsel"es also The transformation is at the necessary e.pense of other relationships in >hich they engage, since such a transformation of themsel"es is ine"itably in a gift economy a transformation of their relations >ith others 4f >e are to looA for domination in interaction bet>een the se.es, it is in the manner in >hich indi"idual men in their domestic and Ainship relations can o"erride the particular interests of others by reference to categorical, collecti"e imperati"es Women ha"e no such recourse The single most effecti"e sanction at the disposal of a 7agen >oman is bodily remo"al of her person 5omination is found in particular acts of e.cess, then; in the 7ighlands these often in"ol"e >hat >e >ould regard as "iolent beha"ior 4n stressing the indi"idual and e"eryday conte.t of such acts, 4 ha"e >anted to a"oid maAing domination out to be anything more than it is At the same time, there is a cultural reason >hy it is specific acts on particular occasions that become out of balance 5omination is a conseGuence of taAing action, and in this sense 4 ha"e suggested that all acts are e.cessi"e Since in Melanesian metaphysics each action is indi"isibly FoneF e"ent, it has to be in interpersonal situations that domination is e.ercised When an e.change of perspecti"es is denied bet>een people >ho are also partners, >hen a FbigF man beats a FsmallF >oman, it has to be in such situations because it is in his male form as an indi"idual agent page300% Page 00& that a man is forced to find an adeGuate aesthetic "ehicle for the capacities that ha"e gro>n >ithin him Gi"en the intention of feminist scholarship to analy6e the nature of oppression and domination bet>een the se.es, and gi"en especially the interest that feminist anthropologists promote in the cross,cultural FconstructionF of personhood, one might >ish to epitomi6e some of the argument of this booA in a second root metaphor The first concerned the social form of persons and things in gift and commodity economies The second concerns the forms of action as Melanesian culture presents them 4f relationships are Ano>n to ha"e been enacted by appearing in the form of persons, acts relate persons through the >ill of the indi"idual subJect Western culture imagines people as persons e.isting in a permanently subJecti"e state; this is their natural and normal condition, and a person can dominate another by depri"ing him or her of the proper e.ercise of that subJecti"ity +.pressed proprietorially, oneFs person properly belongs to oneself ;ut one may be made to do things that o"erride or ignore that property relation, being coerced against oneFs o>n nature thereby Thus a person may be made to act in such a >ay as to deny her or his subJecti"ity and personhood A subJect can be turned into an obJect 4n Melanesian culture, people are imagined in contrasting modesmale and female, same,se. and cross,se., a person al>ays one of a pair of interrelated forms Anyone can register the difference bet>een them as a difference of perspecti"e As persons, >omen and men are eGually the obJects of the regard of others, and thus obJectify their relationships Since persons are the obJecti"e form of relationships, the outcomes of their acts are held to originate in and thus belong to those relationships 4n a debt idiom, one might say that they o>e their persons to those relationships, and thus to other FpersonsF ;ut as far as acting is concerned, an agentFs acts al>ays belong to him or herself /o one else can act for one 7o>e"er much she or he may be compelled or coerced into taAing action, the act is the point at >hich the agent e.ercises her or his subJecti"ity -or as an agent, one also acts from the "antage point of oneself There is a parado. here in Western terms Whereas Melanesian >omen and men are as obJects celebrated as persons in the eyes of others, claimed as the sources of acti"ity and the producti"e outcome of page300&

Page 00$ peopleFs energies, it is as agents that they suffer domination This does not in"ol"e depri"ation of subJecti"ity 4t is that their action must re"eal the demands of others as its cause 4n e.panding this parado., ho>e"er, it becomes possible to see afresh the conundrum at the heart of much Western feminist inGuiry: >hy >omen submit to the rules that oppress them 4t is clear ho> and >hy Western scholars pose the Guestion ;ut it has also become clear that the Melanesian material >ill not yield an ans>er in a familiar form The Western obser"er can understand >omen as the "ictims of menFs beha"ior, and the Melanesian FpersonF may be denigrated as >ell as celebrated, the inert obJect of acti"ity taAing place else>here, ha"ing to re"eal in herself simply the effect of anotherFs intentions ;ut it is harder to understand >omenFs apparent >illingness and their seeming conni"ance in situations that appear to go against their o>n interests 4t is the nature of the >illingness that seems so pu66ling Perhaps >e could imagine the situation this >ay As 4 ha"e described Melanesian cultural con"entions, an agent is made to act not to e.press anotherFs dominant subJecti"ity but because the supports and reasons for taAing action, the others >hom she taAes into account, are al>ays held to lie beyond the moment of the act itself These reasons thus appear as the acts of other persons ;ut since these other persons cannot act for her, only she can taAe her o>n action 4n that sense, it is only her o>n >ill that she can e.ercise page300$ Page 01'

*) #omparison This is in the nature of an epilogue rather than a chapter 4n so far as 4 ha"e been trying to maAe the con"entions of my account e.plicit, the strategy of comparison has been ob"ious throughout ?ie>points ha"e been played off against one another 4 do not intend to maAe the ob"ious more ob"ious What possibly remains of interest, ho>e"er, are the Guestions that ha"e in the course of this process disappeared @ne concern is laid to rest 4t is not the dreary case that in society after society >e encounter e.ample after e.ample of men displaying dominance o"er >omen in their organi6ation of transactions @r e"en that in e.ample after e.ample >e can discern a sphere of female acti"ity to >hich menFs transactions are directed To put it bluntly, there is only one e.ample 4n the end 4 did not offer any adJudication on the marAedly different >ays in >hich men and >omen taAe ad"antage of their situation bet>een the different societies of Melanesia; 4 ha"e not accounted for the distincti"eness of the 7ighlands, for instance, from >hich my problematic >as initially dra>n What emerges instead is the e.tent to >hich the apparently numerous social systems of Melanesia can be considered as "ersions of one another Some sense of the "ariety of social forms is sustained in the running distinction bet>een societies >hose e.change systems do and those >hose do not produce more Ainship /e"ertheless, this crude contrast, intended to stand for di"erse contrasts >ithin the region, in the end has collapsed page301' Page 01* 4 do not mean that the differences are not real, but that they are so to speaA all the same difference: this is >hat has made it possible to understand ceremonial e.change through the phenomenon of initiation and "ice "ersa The manner in >hich male associations are formed, the relationship bet>een mediated and unmediated transactions, and the images gender gi"es to the seGuencing of cause and effect in relations, all appear as >idely shared conceptuali6ations 7arrison has been able to describe the group organi6ation of SepiA societies in the form of 7ighlands ones; they are topological distortions of >hat he calls the same structure 7e concludes: FFa single, or similar, model may underlie the social organisation of some Melanesian societies neither geographically close nor, on the surface, sociologically "ery similarL D*$&1:1'*E The similar conceptuali6ations to >hich 4 refer concern the >ay in >hich people construe social action and maAe Ano>n the outcomes of their relations >ith one another Melanesian societies share a common aesthetic

Such reductionism >ill not please e"eryone -or it also underlines the failure of a comparati"e method >hose persuasion rests in elucidating a repetition of instances That arithmeticbased on the plurality of unitshas disappeared 7ere >e ha"e "arieties of or "ersions of a FsingleF instance These societies hold their con"entions in common 4 >ould dra> an analogy 4n the same >ay as one might >ish to comprehend capitalist organi6ation as it de"eloped historically in +urope, so one needs to inJect a real history into our comprehension of Melanesian gift economies The history itself may be unreco"erable, but >e surely Ano> enough about historical process to recogni6e a series of connected e"ents Whether one retains the idea of a single formation, or breaAs it do>n into t>o or three prototypical situations, is irrele"ant The point is that >e are not confronted >ith repetiti"e rein"entions of male domination This should be of interest to those feminists >ho turn to anthropological material, such as that on Melanesia, to e.plore the full range of alternati"e forms of gender relations, only to find the Fe.ample after e.ampleF syndrome 4 ha"e suggested the syndrome does not e.ist T>o conclusions follo> @n the one hand, there is no need to account for the uni"ersal dominance of men in the 7ighlands; the facts of the case merely indicate the ramifications of a single DhistoricalE set of social arrangements There is no proof of uni"ersality here, only the inference that >e are dealing >ith transformations at once as specific and as comple. as the de"elopment of +uropean societies o"er the last page301* Page 01) t>o hundred years under commodity production 4ndeed if one could undertaAe an anthropology of the nation states of +urope, one might be in a better position to undertaAe the anthropology of Melanesia @n the other hand, it is also the case that these people are enchained into acting out "ersions of their past 5espite the e.tremities to >hich some go, or the mildness on the countenance of others, they are tied to specific "ersions of their former sel"es The sharing of aesthetic con"entions is not the residue of some generali6ed past life held in common That life al>ays tooA its o>n concrete form and must ha"e been no more nor less di"erse than that of +uropean societies before the industrial re"olution This is the point at >hich to defend the fiction the reader may ha"e found the most imprecisethe comparison of Melanesia and Western society2culture -ar from being "ague, the our2their di"ide of this narrati"e is its most concrete aspect The notion that di"erse cultural forms generate multitudinous different FsocietiesF belongs to a premise of commodity logic, that >hat people maAe are FthingsF Dincluding abstract things such as cultures and societiesE F#ulturalF acti"ity is the di"ersification of as >ell as proliferation of things This lays the trap for the doubly snared perple.ities of uni"eralism and relati"ity 4t >ould seem either that elements are to be found e"ery>here, or else that they are found some>here, a Guest at once instigated and defeated by regarding societies as numerically multitudinous !niformly, so to speaA, societies appear in this "ie> to proliferate across the >orld; and there is no end to perceptible proliferation Within Melanesia >e are dealing >ith societies that cannot be counted separately because, despite the contrasts bet>een them, as "ersions of one another they are implicated in one anotherFs histories The "ersions can be compared ;ut if they can be compared by reference to >hat they hold in common, it is precisely for this reasonas outgro>ths and de"elopments of one another Specific forms come not from generali6ed ones but from other specific forms 4t follo>s that these same internal contrasts cannot be e.ternali6ed to include Four o>nF as a further "ersion for comparison, a third party as it >ere Dfrom the Western anthropologistFs perspecti"e, +uro,American industrialism2capitalist formation2commodity economy2bourgeois culture or >hate"er is claimed for the saAe of argumentE The people of 7agen or of +nga do not compose entities that can be compared >ith FWestern societyF, nor indeed >ith Wales or /orth America for that matter #omparati"e anthropology misleadingly assumes that all societies page301) Page 010 struggle >ith the same gi"ens of nature, so that all social formations appear eGui"alently and thus holistically organi6ed to the same ends ;ut if >e >ere to compare Melanesian societies to those of Western +urope, comparison >ould ha"e to be directed to the o"erall Melanesian region as the site of di"erse outgro>ths of a uniGue historical process and not to indi"idual peoples This is the sense in >hich 4 >ould agree >ith +lshtain Dpp 0*)0*0E #omparison is inadmissible not because some people li"e simple li"es and some do not 4t is

inadmissible to Ju.tapose this or that particular historical form >ith >hat >e in our imagination generali6e as the single FsocietyF of the West There is no such society; there are only generali6ations ;ut from a Melanesian perspecti"e, this means that there is a >idespead sharing of established con"entions 4t is re"ealed as soon as one attempts to talA about Melanesian sociality in Western terms: conseGuently >hat can be compared >ith Western con"entions are the cultural con"entions that 7agen and +nga thus seem to share 7ence 4 ha"e referred in a most general >ay to both FWesternF and FMelanesianF ideas And that generality has been >ith specific intent All 4 ha"e done is maAe e.plicit such implicit cultural comparisons as are entailed in the incidental Ju.tapositions of deploying one language as the medium in >hich to re"eal the form that another, >ere it comparable, might taAe :et this also maAes comparability disappear 9anguages themsel"es are not generali6ed but specific phenomena 4n e.panding the metaphorical possibilities of the specific language of Western analysis, it can only be its o>n metaphors that 4 utili6e 4 ha"e tried to maAe this asymmetry apparent TaAing apart the image of the commodity Dthings produced for e.changeE unco"ers the gift Dthings produced by e.changeE; but the formula rests on a Western dichotomy in the first place The result is that the Ano>ledge 4 produce about Melanesian societies is not commensurate >ith the form that Ano>ledge taAes there The fact that my argument >orAs through innumerable oppositions and contrasts, for e.ample, is an inescapable residue of a commodity logic concerned >ith the "alue or relations bet>een things, including abstract concepts Were one to Ju.tapose Melanesian Ano>ledge practices, one >ould instead be faced >ith the presentation of a DsingleE synthetic image 8elations >ould be made apparent not through the classification of its attributes, but through its decomposition into a series of other images MenFs body >ould be seen to contain the children of >omen, and looAing at the maternal body >ould be looAing at the transactions of men page3010 Page 011 4n stri"ing to con"ey this incommensurability, 4 re"eal the most significant limitation of this account Practices in the West assume that things e.ist as information before they e.ist as Ano>ledge At the same time, it is the accumulation of information that produces Ano>ledgeAno>ing the reasons for >hich the material >as collectedand of itself thus yields the classificatory relations that maAe sense of it The sense is a"ailable to anyone; e.pertise lies in maAing the relations #onseGuently the method is simple: enGuiry into the nature of the things There is a timeless dimension to this Western e.ercise, for at issue is the effecti"eness through >hich inherent relationships are brought to light 7ence 4 ha"e presented the oppositions and analogies and encompassments described in this booA as coe.istent attributes of a FsystemF Dmy Melanesian aestheticE -rom a Melanesian perspecti"e, >hat is missing is real time As 4 >ould grasp that perspecti"e, relations only appear as a conseGuence of other relations, forms out of other forms #onsuming Ano>ledge about one form means maAing another form appear This reGuires human effort People tie the reason for Ano>ing things to particular seGuences of causes and their effects, for Ano>ledge only maAes sense if it is consumed by the right person at the right place and time @ther>ise it is mere surface phenomena, disembodied DunconsumedE things 4nformation does not e.ist in itself 4 ha"e tried to imitate this timing in composing a narrati"e that depends on internal seGuencing ;ut at the same time 4 defeat the purpose of the imitation because the literary plot can only maAe things more ob"ious; it cannot do >hat Melanesians constantly do, and subseGuently conceal >hat has been re"ealed @ne needs real time to do that We ha"e seen that the benefits of ceremonial gift e.change must be reabsorbed by one or the other partner in order to create a premise for ne> action The same could be said of Melanesian Ano>ledge 8elationships ha"e to be hidden >ithin particular formsminds, shells, persons, cult houses, gardensin order to be dra>n out of them That is an inimitable process page3011 Page 01(

/@T+S page301(

Page 01%

/otes *: Anthropological Strategies * 7 WhiteheadFs e.ploration of the "arieties of fertility cultism in /e> Guinea has since appeared D"merican Ethnologist, *$&6E Within the 7ighlands, comparati"e histories are being >ritten by both -eil and 9ederman; and a region,focused collection of essays on the Southern 7ighlands2Papuan Plateau is being prepared by =ames Weiner ) 8ecent collections include special issues of Man.ind on concepts of conception D=orgensen ed *$&0E and studies in the political economy DGardner and ModJesAa eds *$&(E; of !ocial "nalysis DPoole and 7erdt eds *$&)E on se.ual antagonism; and the 3ceania Monograph on history and ethnohistory DGe>ert6 and Schieffelin eds *$&(E See also A = Strathern ed *$&) 0 The Sirians in her no"el constantly conGuered and coloni6ed other planets to find a purpose for their acti"ity The preface to the no"el begins, 4 thinA it liAely that our "ie> of oursel"es as a species on this planet no> is inaccurate, and >ill striAe those >ho come after us as inadeGuate as the >orld "ie> of, letFs say, the inhabitants of /e> Guinea seems to us D*$&*:$E The inadeGuacy of the "ie>, it turns out, is not Just an incomplete conceptuali6ation of the >orld but an incomplete appreciation of interests 1 M Strathern D*$%&E presents the negati"e case in some detail To classify by Fcultural traitF, a number of elements in 7agen life could suggest some form of puberty or initiation ritual: peripatetic cults, one of >hich includes the playing of flutes to Aeep >omen a>ay; a concern >ith gro>th, fertility and se.uality in cult conte.ts; and a gro>th cult for boys reported by ?icedom and Tischner D*$10*$1& ?ol 44:*&'ffE and Strauss D*$6):0$6ffE 4t is illuminating that ?icedom opens his report >ith a negati"ity: he has, he says, little to say page301% Page 01& about the initiation of youths in Mount 7agen; people at the time Dlate *$0'sE claimed none e.isted then, and the nearest eGui"alent to an Finitiation cultF had died out fifty years before The cult in Guestion in"ol"ed the seclusion of men and boys, and an eGuation bet>een flutes and the bird @p >hich >as blo>n on them Participants are described as li"ing >ith the bird in the same >ay as participants of other 7agen cults Fli"e >ithF the cult stones or the spirit these embody All the e"idence suggests that this should be included among the many named cults that circulated through the 7agen region, "ariously promoting health, fecundity, and gro>th, both for the participants and for the >omen, children, li"estocA, and gardens outside #ults come and go, de"oted to a panoply of spirits, some locally based, some passing from clan to clan F4nitiationF into them for their duration is not to be confused >ith either of the t>o categories that Allen D*$6%E elucidates: puberty rites during the course of life,cycle de"elopment and initiation into a discrete social group DAllen himself commented on the e.ceptional status of 7agen, along >ith Mendi, as e"incing neither formal initiation nor the bachelor associations of some of their neighbors See also <e>a D=osephides *$&0:)$(E Gourlay D*$%(:$1$6E notes areas of eastern Papua lacAing initiation comple.es E The important point to my mind is not >hether one can sho> scraps of beliefs and practices e.isting here as else>here but their contribution to social life 4n contemporary 7agen society, initiation and puberty rituals do not establish gender difference ( ;y Western 4 al>ays mean that the set of ideas in Guestion deri"es from a social source >ith its o>n specific and singular nature by contrast to the deri"ation of Melanesian ideas; not that FWesternF society so designated can be understood monolithically 6 4 might note here the deliberate illusionist style >ith >hich negati"ities ha"e been used to analytical effectprominently by /eedham DLthere is no such thing as Ainship,L *$%*:(E and 8i"iUre DLmarriage is not an isolable relationship,L *$%*:%*E, at the time that Schneider >as asserting that Ainship Ldoes not e.ist in any culture Ano>n to manL D*$%*, in Schneider *$&1E At the end of his recent booA, Schneider feels others may

interpret him as suggesting that in spite of all the Gualifications about >hether or not Ainship is a useful analytical category, one should Just get on and study it 7e comments on the absurdity of this position 4n my o>n account, negation is meant to set up a relation bet>een sets of ideas that are, on the one hand, the social constructs of others and, on the other, social constructs as specifically deployed in an analysis not reducible to a homology >ith these constructs % The phrase comes from Marriott 7is remarAs about South Asian theories of the person are pertinent: personssingle actorsare not thought in South Asia to be Findi"idualF, that is, indi"isible, bounded units, as they are in much of Western social and psychological theory as >ell as in common sense 4nstead, it appears that persons are generally thought by South Asians to be Fdi"idualF or di"isible To e.ist, di"idual persons absorb heterogeneous material influences They must also gi"e out from themsel"es particles of their o>n coded substancesessences, residues, or other acti"e influencesthat may then reproduce in others something of the nature of the persons in >hom they ha"e originated D*$%6:***E page301& Page 01$ +arlier he remarAs, LWhat goes on )et#een actors are the same connected processes of mi.ing and separation that go on #ithin actorsL D*$%6:*'$, original emphasisE We shall see the significance of this concept for Melanesian formulations & After 7arrison D*$&(aE 4 ha"e used the epithet antisocial in respect to 7agen >omenFs self,referring interests DM Strathern *$&':)'(; also *$&*a: *%&E The latter article depends upon a contrast bet>een FsocialF and FpersonalF concerns >here 4 >ould no>for reasons that >ill become apparentprefer to speaA of Fcollecti"eF and FsingularF ones 4ndeed, reflecting on the singular construction one might add that the state of autonomy is effecti"e not because a person has set him2herself against FsocialF interests, but rather celebrates his2her o>n self,contained sociality $ An eGuation that also has a mathematical basis in certain Melanesian counting systems Dsee chap *', n 0E *' 4n comparing FourF categories >ith FtheirF categories, one is of course comparing t>o "ersions of our categories, the latter being deri"ed from >hat >e taAe to be salient or rele"ant to them, e"en as the ideas gained from >hat >e taAe to be FtheirF categories come from FourF encounters To e.tract certain distinct ideas out of the encounter is not to Judge the people as distinct, nor necessarily entail a comparison of >hole societies DGoody *$%%:0E ** +nne> has dra>n attention to the manner in >hich ;ateson Fmade strangeF the anthropologically strange and effected a conceptual separation bet>een his method of ethnographic description and its referent dataa de"ice she liAens to the deliberate distortions of the 8ussian -ormalist proJect in literature, L>hich breaA the chain of habitual associations, and maAe it possible to percei"e rather than recogniseL D*$&*:($E ): A Place 4n The -eminist 5ebate * #ompare +isenstein D*$&1:(1E on lesbianism as La theoretical position,L a definition of female identity that incorporates a critiGue of se.ual politics ) +mphasi6ing the specificity of >omenFs oppression leads to sympathy >ith other forms of oppression >hose "ictims can be identified as a similar FminorityF +mphasi6ing the specificity of class oppression must assimilate other oppressions to a "ersion of that one Dthat is, as resulting from the same fundamental social processesE Thus, LThe materialist problematic is based on a conceptuali6ation of human society as defined specifically by its producti"ity: primarily of the means of subsistence and of "alue by the transformation of nature through >orAL D<uhn and Wolpe *$%&:%E @n society as a plurality of attributes, <riste"a notes ho> the identity of certain Lsociocultural groupsL may be defined according to their place in production and reproduction L>hich, >hile bearing the specific sociocultural traits of the formation in Guestion, are diagonal Noriginal emphasisO to it and connect it to other sociocultural formationsL"i6 FFyoung people in +urope,L and L+uropean >omenL D*$&*:*1*(E What defines them as >omen places them FdiagonallyF to their +uropean origin and linAs them to others 0 -or e.ample, L-eminist analyses sho> the e.istence of >omanFs multi, page301$

Page 0(' dimensional oppression )y the social systemL DPla6a *$%&:( Dtrans E, my emphasisE The comment also applies to the concept patriarchy, for instance 8ubin obser"es the follo>ing: The term FpatriarchyF >as introduced to distinguish the forces maintaining se.ism from other social forces, such as capitalism ;ut the use of FpatriarchyF obscures other distinctions 4ts use is analogous to using capitalism to refer to all modes of production, >hereas the usefulness of the term FcapitalismF lies precisely in that it distinguishes bet>een the different systems by >hich societies are pro"isioned and organi6ed D*$%(:*6%E Mc5onough and 7arrison D*$%&:*0*E comment similarly on MillettFs deployment of the concept in !exual 'olitics 1 Any one of a number of te.ts could ser"e here -or e.ample: LMy purpose in >riting this booA has been to understand the li"es of Australian >omen in order that >e might change our conditions and subordinationL DMatthe>s *$&1:)&E ( The contrast is o"erdra>n, as are all the contrasts in this paragraph The t>o radicalisms are combined, for instance, in +lshtainFs D*$&)E search for emancipatory speech ;ut some of the ambiguity is acAno>ledged in critiGues of >omenFs studies -or e.ample, apropos essays on >omenFs studies in ;ritain in *$&0, the editors commented thus on their >orA as a collecti"e: four >omen of different cultural, national, religious and class bacAgrounds >orAing together, learning from each other, accepting our differences, encouraging each other >ith the aim of producing something to be shared by as many >omen as possible, and enJoying it allas a reali6ation of sisterhood D;attel et al *$&0:)())(0, emphasis remo"edE @ne of their contributors, ho>e"er, later challenges the ease of this common identification: >e bring >ith us to the WomenFs 9iberation Mo"ement a >ealth of differing e.periences that cannot be ignored Sisterhood in"ol"es maintaining linAs bet>een >omen >ith differing "ie>s on the causes of our oppressions, >hilst feminist theory sho>s that all these oppressions cannot be contained >ithin any one theory D-rance *$&0:0'6E -or an e.perientially based approach that does not taAe the categories of analysis for granted, see Stanley and Wise D*$&0E; also the essays in ;o>les and <lein D*$&0E 6 This relationship may in turn be ascribed to FnaturalF origins: scholars search for the original or typical male,female relation after >hich all else is cultural elaboration % Thus Goodenough D*$%':*E opens his general account of ethnocentrism in the comparati"e method on a premise of similarity: L7uman societies, anthropologists maintain, despite their many forms and di"erse customs, are all aliAe in being e.pressions of manAindFs common human nature L & +thnicity is one of the forms by >hich people represent FcultureF to themsel"es in GellnerFs D*$&)E type of gro>th,oriented industrial society 7e contrasts the cultural homogeneity of such societies Dtheir nationalismE >ith the cultural di"ersity of another societal type, ad"anced agrarian,based ci"ili6ations

page30(' Page 0(* The ethnic di"isions of modern society parado.ically replicate this cultural homogeneity: they posit homogeneity as internal to the ethnic unit, such that it becomes a nation >ithin a nation Singular attributes are held to identify singular social interests These in turn pro"ide cultural gro>th points for post,industrial aesthetic and stylistic pluralism $ 8eason D*$%$E linAs this mode of understanding to the organi6ation of production in a capitalist economy *' Anthropological art is a display of systematics, and as art displays the display by sho>ing its con"entional naturethat particular theories do not co"er all contingencies, thereby demonstrating that they co"er some 4t deals in other >ords in certain conceptuali6ations of Fe"entF and FsystemF that are general features of Western reflecti"e practice As Wagner argues, systemati6ing effort ine"itably FproducesF e"ents and instances, such as cultures holistically precipitated in particularistic or natural resistance to the act of systemati6ing This is ho> the FuniGueF monographs of the Trobriand 4slands or the people of Mt 7agen may be recei"ed 4f indi"idual descriptions of indi"idual societies come to ha"e the status of uniGue e"ents only conscious effort can then FrelateF them #omparati"e analysis taAes such instances as the facts to be brought into relation >ith one another ** -or e.ample, L-or those of us >ho ha"e li"ed in the third >orld, >e found that our e.perience of ineGuality in our o>n country ga"e us a particular >ay of focusing on the ineGualities obser"ed in the countries in >hich >e >ere >orAingL D< :oung et al *$&*:"iiE *) 7ence 7ara>ayFs remarA that LN>Oe reGuire regeneration, not rebirthL D*$&(:*''E 0: Groups: Se.ual Antagonism 4n The /e> Guinea 7ighlands * True at least of Melanesian anthropology 4 did not initially use the term thus myself Dsee M Strathern *$%); >ritten *$6$E; my o>n first usage is in a paper >ritten in *$%0 Dpub *$%&E; Goodale >as also >riting on the <aulong gender in *$%0 A Weiner, >ho >as >orAing on her Trobriand material then, refers to the Lsocial construction of realityL D*$%6:*)E M Strathern D*$%6; >ritten *$%1E refers to Lgender constructs L 4 recall being influenced by @aAleyFs !ex+ Gender and !ociety D*$%)E and 7uttFs Males and %emales D*$%)E ) These arguments appeared at a time >hen the ne> feminism >as gaining ground in anthropology, e g , -aithorn D*$%6E; A Weiner D*$%6E; -eil D*$%&E 0 At this Juncture, 4 refer to the di"ision of labor as a type of relationship bet>een persons, >hether or not the products of labor Dincluding the commodity labor po>erE can be compared and e.changed 1 9eahy and #rain D*$0%:*('E The e.clamations of the e.plorers DLGoldSL2L#attleSLE are noted by Souter D*$61:*&*E ( #onflation bet>een social structure and the study of groups is often placed at 8adcliffe,;ro>nFs door #ertainly, he defined social structure in his influential account of the social organi6ation of Australian tribes D*$0'*$0*E as a system of formal grouping 4n his later reflections D*$1'E, ho>e"er, social page30(* Page 0() structure >as Lall social relations of persons to persons,L and Lthe differentiation of indi"iduals and classes by their social role L 7e includes here the differential social positions of men and >omen #ompare +"ans,Pritchard D*$1':)6)E, and his definition of social structure as Lrelations bet>een groups >hich ha"e a high degree of consistency and constancy FF P ;ro>n D*$6)E made it e.plicit that she follo>ed this latter definition 6 -or e.ample, see A = Strathern D*$6$E Wagner D*$6%E deliberately modified alliance theory in terms of unit definition and cross,unit relationship 7e also D*$%1E ga"e FgroupF based theories of 7ighlands society a Guite radical critiGue, >hich did not simply rest on emphasi6ing Findi"idualF connections at group e.pense Dthe form of most critiGues of the *$%'s, as noted in chap 1E

% ?erdon D*$&':*0(E traces this influence to &he $uer/s preoccupation >ith political relations 4n the FJural modelF of descent, the problem of a groupFs internal cohesion cannot be separated from that of its differentiation 7e continues: There seems Nin this modelO to be only one >ay of sol"ing the Guestion of internal cohesion, namely, by describing and e.plaining ho> a set of mental representations has a psychological effect on indi"idual feelings or sentiments, thereby dra>ing indi"iduals together D*$&':*06E & 7e delineated a homology bet>een the relation of e.traclan military threat "ersus intraclan military protection and feminine pollution "ersus masculine purity; he also adduced a set of beha"ioral elements, under the supposition that LMae culture e.emplifies that constellation of traits >hich includes fear of se.uality and of pollution, emphasis on a male cult and freGuent conflict bet>een affinally connected groupsL D*$61:)*$))', my emphasisE MeggittFs synthesis of analytic "ie>points >as to remain a hallmarA of 7ighlands ethnography, >ith its dual ;ritish,American origins Social anthropologists could talA about categories and relations; cultural anthropologists about beha"ior and identity Thus >hen 9angness D*$61E challenged ;arnesFs D*$6)E characteri6ation of >eaA group solidarity, he tooA a construct referring in the first place to principles of e.clusi"e classification as referring to the "iability and strength of groups in confrontation $ 9et me maAe it clear that the follo>ing remarAs are directed not to the man but to aspects of his ideas 4 say the same for the pioneering >orA of 9angness and the more recent, and in its o>n >ay pioneering, program of 7erdt All of them ha"e nourished an interest in psychological anthropology >here many 7ighlands ethnographers ha"e been ignorant or neglectful; ha"e pro"ided a pro"ocati"e corpus of material, and asAed difficult Guestions others ha"e ignored *' 4 Guote 8eadFs opening statement D*$%*:)*1E: 4 am primarily concerned >ith the sociological functions of the cult, >ith the manner in >hich these inter,related beliefs and acti"ities assist in the regulation, maintenance and transmission of sentiments on >hich the constitution of GahuAu,Gama society depends 8ead e.plicitly associates his argument >ith hypotheses formulated, as he says, by 5urAheim, 8adcliffe, ;ro>n, and others page30() Page 0(0 ** The nature in Guestion is nature as GahuAu,Gama concei"e it; 8ead is not in"oAing biology in an absolutist manner Thus >hen he says that GahuAu,Gama sa> no need to promote the Lbiological >omanhoodL of girls, or that they found it necessary to finish Lthe biological manhood of young malesL D*$&):6&6$E, >e understand he is referring to their o>n constructs ;ut the point 4 >ish to maAe is the parallel adduced bet>een the purpose of the rites DLmanhood and masculinity had to be ritually inducedLE and a particular Western antithesis bet>een nature and culture 4n this antithesis, culture acts on and modifies nature Although he can >rite parado.ically that for the GahuAu,Gama themsel"es, LNtOhe achie"ement of biological manhood as >ell as its maintenance could not be left to natureL D8ead *$&):6$; *$%*:))&E, the Aind of manhood that GahuAu,Gama men promote is understood as an artifact of their culture 4f ritual creati"ity is interpreted thus as o"ercoming the limitations of nature, this implies that such ideas are being accredited to GahuAu,Gama themsel"es *) Sambia are among the congeries of Anga,speaAers >hose languages lie outside those of the central DWestern and +asternE 7ighlands families :et noting that Sambia beliefs and practices closely resemble those of the nama cult, despite many institutional differences, he argues that >hat holds for the GahuAu,Gama holds too for Sambia: Lmen are, by birth, biologically unfinished compared to >omen @nly ritual can correct that imbalanceL D7erdt *$&*:*(E See Meigs D*$&1:%&E for a similar "ie> about menFs need to inter"ene in biological processes about >hich they feel insecure #arrier Dn d ; 4 am grateful for permission to citeE >ould find support here for his analysis of American concepts of nature and culture 7e e.amines t>o American theories about learning disability, sho>ing that one proceeds on the premise that a failure of nature leads to insufficient culture, the other that a failure of culture leads to insufficient nature !nderlying the theories is a correlation bet>een the FcompletenessF of these respecti"e endo>ments Similar reasoning seems to underlie the anthropological postulate that because boys are seen by /e> Guineans not to gro> GuicAly Da failure of natureE, then they cannot be socially masculine Dinsufficient cultureE This is regarded by the outsider as a conceptual failure on the part of the

/e> Guinea culture Dsince in fact the boys >ill gro> into menE >hich the culture remedies by maAing Fmore cultureF *0 +lse>here he stresses an indi"idual le"elLthe le"el of male gender identity and its preser"ationL D*$&)a:$*Eand the psychological distancing mechanisms that gi"e insight not only into identity but into Lcharacter structure L 7e refers to masculini6ation as Lthat second NpostchildhoodO e.periential FlayerF of sociali6ation implemented through ritual lifeL D*$&*:0*(E *1 -ollo>ing 8ead and 9angness, 7erdt postulates that this need for unitary identity is demanded of men by their >arring communities The rites do not Just maAe men but maAe >arriors *( #ompare 8eadFs constant and important reminders of the parallel if lesser trauma of being a >itness 4t >ould be honest to note that the third,hand e.perience of reading the ethnographic accounts e"ery time maAes me >ant to abandon an aim concei"ed of as interpretation2analysis Tu6in D*$&', *$&)E page30(0 Page 0(1 maAes a strong plea, on behalf of analysis itself, that >hat is being e.perienced matters and that the obser"er should not become desensiti6ed to the cruelty that FculturesF inflict *6 ;arrett D*$&':6(E, Guoting the >orA of Mc4ntosh and WeeAs *% 7erdt con"incingly sho>s that homose.ual beha"ior among Sambia men is not Fhomose.ualF in the Western sense, that is, a challenge to heterose.ual beha"ior @n the contrary, it is a precursor to it Sambia homose.uality does not challenge male gender identity in his terms but rather gradually builds it up as a remedy for a problem that lies else>here Din the nature of the uninitiated boysF constitutionE *& <eesing stresses the fraudulent nature of menFs claims to cosmic significance and points to a central structural contradiction L;y separating menFs realm from >omenFs to create male solidarity, these systems lea"e beyond male control the e"eryday li"esand mindsof >omenL D*$&):06E *$ Within feminist theory at large, there is considerable internal debate o"er >hether the gendered FbodyF can be regarded as outside FdiscourseF Dhistory, cultureE, as molded by discourse or as the cause of discourse @ne commentator Din the conte.t of a translation of <riste"aFs >orAE notes: L4f it is no more useful to posit the body as entirely constituted by the effects of language or discourse than it is to posit it as unitary and e.tra,discursi"e, the Guestion still remains as to ho> to thinA the bodyL DPaJac6Ao>sAa *$&*:*(**()E -eminist anthropology generally seeAs alignment >ith those theorists Dparticularly the self,styled Mar.ists2SocialistsE interested in aspects of gender differentiation that can be related to social or cultural form Dsee chap 1E D7arris *$&*; StolcAe *$&*E This includes the degree to >hich difference is constructed ;arrett, among other feminist commentators, continues the argument that the ideology of sharply separated masculinity and femininity, of >hat she calls heterose.ual familialism, is Ldeeply embedded in the di"ision of labour and capitalist relations of productionL D*$&':6*E That is >hy, she argues, the politici6ation of >omenFs personal li"es >ill not of itself eradicate >omenFs oppression Pla6a similarly critici6es the postulate that difference Dbet>een gendered bodiesE is FreallyF located in nature, rather than in the discourse Dor representationsE that in fact constitutes difference and constitutes nature as a category To celebrate the body as the site of difference Lis already to participate in a social and oppressi"e systemL D*$%&:6E and is not to critici6e it from a "antage point outside She comments on certain psychoanalytic interpretations of se.ual difference that regard this difference as imposed on the infant and as D*E being a natural order, D)E reGuiring hierarchy, and D0E indispensable for acGuiring an identity D*$%&:)*E )' Gatens promotes a theoretical stand contingent on a politics of Fse.ual differenceF, carefully distinguished from former radical feminisms 7er argument about the une.amined assumptions in the rationalist "ie> of the genderless person, as a basis from >hich to mount critiGues of gender ideology, resonates in other contemporary debates +lshtain D*$&1E critici6es theories that conflate gender difference >ith male dominance DFpatriarchyFE and lead to a counter,recipe of androgynous ideals and se.ual symmetry 9iAe Gatens, she attacAs the sociali6ation theorists 4llich Guestions the e.tent to >hich >e assume the page30(1

Page 0(( undifferentiated indi"idual is a natural genderless entity molded by se. role e.pectations D*$&):&0E 7e emphasi6es the social and historical specificity of that notion of the person, though responses to 4llichFs presentation of his "ie>s at ;erAeley indicate ho> contentious these ideas are DSee the symposium, F;eyond the ;acAlashF in %eminist ,ssues, Spring *$&0 E )* The phrase is a Guote from a Guote DMar.E; see <o"el D*$&1:*'6E, >ho refers to the Theses on -euerbach ?4 )) A fallacy charged to descent group and alliance theorists by Schneider D*$6(:16E, though it >ould be hard to include -ortes here DScheffler *$&(:)', n *1E -eil raises the critiGue in an attacA on the analysis of single se. ideology D*$&1a:(*()E )0 Anyone >ho looAs up this reference >ill see that 9angnessFs scorn is directed at >riters such as myself >ho, as he says, displace concern >ith the underlying psychological components of male,female relations >ith one to do >ith structural and economic elements ;y FthinAF in the Guotation gi"en in the te.t, he means Fha"e a personal opinion onF rather than Fha"e an intellectual position onF 1: 5omains: Male And -emale Models * Wola, >ho speaA a "ariant of Mendi, li"e in the Southern 7ighlands pro"ince, but for the purpose of the contrasts 4 maAe belong to the FWesternF as opposed to F+asternF 7ighlands ) When it is remembered that the tee linAs indi"iduals and, through them, their communities o"er a >ide area, and that hostilities bet>een groups cease to allo> an approaching tee to continue on its >ay, it is clear that parochial conflict bet>een groups >as often subordinated to the uni"ersal interests of tee,maAing 4ndi"idual e.change partnerships taAe precedence and subdue the destructi"e >ars of clans D-eil *$&1b:)0E 0 The concept of metaphor >as used interchangeably >ith the concept of sign, that is, referring to processes of con"entional representation DsignificationE, and not Das a self,contained or figurati"e tropeE in contrast >ith sign DWagner *$%&E 4nGuiry into con"entional signification rests, of course, on elucidating Fthe relationshipF bet>een signifier and signified This epistemological strategy >as at one >ith an endea"or that sa> the construction of male and female as constructed in reference to >hat men and >omen did2>ere 1 S Ardener consistently refers to the study of >omen rather than to feminist inspiration; #aplan and ;uJraFs D*$%&E collection >as e.plicitly feminist 4n the States at about the same time appeared a number of syntheses, e g , -riedl D*$%(E, Martin and ?oorhies D*$%(E, >hich address themsel"es to se. roles and the di"ision of labor as a contribution to the generally pre"alent interest in issues to do >ith male,female relations rather than to the Aind of specific feminist intent acAno>ledged by 8osaldo and 9amphere and by 8eiter ( Specifically in 8osaldoFs challenging essay D*$%1E #hodoro> D*$%&:$E summari6es the state of the argument at the time: Public institutions, acti"ities and forms of association linA and ranA domestic units, pro"ide rules for menFs relations to domestic units, and tie men to one another apart page30(( Page 0(6 from their domestic relationships Public institutions are assumed to be defined according to normati"e, hence social, criteria, and not biologically or naturally 4t is therefore assumed that the public sphere, and not the domestic sphere, forms FsocietyF and FcultureF MenFs location in the public sphere, then, defines society itself as masculine This set of ideas and social forms >as seen as a uni"ersal source of se.ual asymmetry 6 S Ardener pleaded, for instance, for the careful e.amination of the models of both the dominant and the muted groups in any one society D*$%(: ..iE, >ithout implying that they >ould be of the same order, and e.plicitly denying that in the case of men and >omen a purposi"e domination by men >as necessarily at

>orA + Ardener D*$%)E refers specifically to menFs and >omenFs models, the discreteness of their "ie>s being themsel"es deri"ed from the content of these models Din the ;aA>eri case, >here men and >omen place one another according to the relationship bet>een society and natureE See the discussion in 8ogers D*$%&E The Guestioning of the ideological unity of menFs and >omenFs "alues >as central to the de"elopment of a >oman,focused anthropology in the mid,late *$%'s % @n this point and others my account benefits greatly from a seminar presentation by Margaret =olly and #hristine 7elli>ell to the A / ! Gender 8esearch Group in *$&0 DSee also 8app *$%$:('$ E & 5ocumentation of this point is gi"en in M Strathern *$&*a; *$&1a Some of the material first presented in the latter article is re,presented in this chapter $ @rtner intends to dra> attention to this as a >idespread cultural de"ice This possibility of gradationas in the related constructs that one may be FmoreF or FlessF of a full person, or ha"e FmoreF or FlessF cultureis certainly a significant +uro,American construct 4t under>rites sociali6ation theory, for instance 9Vfgren Din pressE offers a similar "ie> about culture from S>eden *' Although not a cited source for 8osaldoFs account, 4 refer primarily to the >orA of -ortes, as many other commentators do De g , :eatman *$&1E -ortesFs o>n >ords on the relationship bet>een the public and Jural dimensions of the political domain are >orth Guoting: 4 define FJuralF as denoting certain aspects or elements of right and duty, pri"ilege and responsibility, laid do>n in the rules that go"ern social relations 4t is, furthermore, distincti"e of these features of right and duty, pri"ilege and responsibility that they ha"e the bacAing of the >hole society That is to say, they deri"e their sanction from the political frame>orA of the society They thus ha"e FpublicF legitimacy in contrast to the Fpri"ateF legitimacy of rights and capacities based solely on moral norms or metaphysical beliefs D*$6$:&$E ** The description comes from =ollyFs published and unpublished >orA: see =olly *$&*, *$&); in press 4 am "ery grateful for her permission to cite unpublished material and in places dra> directly on her >ords >ithout al>ays signalling the fact *) Men and >omen eat at separate fires; men eat communally in a clubhouse, but there is a di"ision based on their ranA in the graded society *0 Se.ton D*$&), *$&0, *$&1E A comparati"e comment is offered in Warry page30(6 Page 0(% D*$&(E; the classic account of the de"elopment of FbusinessF in the GoroAa area is -inney D*$%0' 4 refer to the response of "illage >omen; Se.ton D*$&0E describes the acti"ities of elite business >omen The rituals spread through the #hua"e and GoroAa 5istricts DSimbu and +astern 7ighlands Pro"incesE; Se.tonFs >orA >as focused on a linguistic border area among Asaro and SianespeaAers, to the >est of GahuAu,Gama and ;ena ;ena *1 Warry D*$&(:)&E reports that #hua"e >omen comment on menFs failure to bring >ealth into the area and say that they are sho>ing their menfolA Lthe road to de"elopment L *( +"en >here a prior Ain relationship e.ists, the fact that these ties are on an all,female basis means that men are precluded from gaining status from the >omenFs transactions; this ne> Ainship does not include them Dalso Se.ton *$&):*%1E Warry stresses that #hua"e >omen see their o>n transactions, by comparison >ith menFs, as noncompetiti"e The competiti"e nature of menFs single se. ties is thereby gi"en fresh e"aluation *6 Although at the same time they may also claim to be enhancing menFs affairs and clan reputations Se.ton D*$&1:*16E reports that 5aulo >omen support their husbandFs use of income for ceremonial payments Dit is large sums sGuandered on personal pleasures about >hich they complainE MenFs o>n attitudes "ary from hostility to encouragement *% Thus >here male migrants stressed an eGuali6ing collecti"ity among themsel"es, >hich freGuently embraced male "isitors to to>n as >ell, >omen brought them bacA to asymmetries in peopleFs dependence upon one another and to the specificity of particular ties 7agen collecti"e life appears on the surface detached from the particularities of Ainship relations 4n 5aulo and #hua"e, by contrast, Ain,focused e"ents

Dlife cycle crises and payments to categories of AinE managed by men also mobili6e clans and lineages in competiti"e FcorporateF acti"ity *& Although 4 ha"e critici6ed aspects of this paper else>here, its general orientation is one 4 also adopt; @rtner argues that one cannot focus upon >omenFs po>ers in particular societies >ithout understanding the deeper assumptions that accord them the "alue they ha"e 4mportantly she is concerned >ith the de"aluation of >omen as a matter of >hat >omen stand for *$ Paul 8abino> Dpersonal communicationE properly Gueried my reference to FtheoryF in such a conte.t, obJecting that one >ould need an epistemology to Ano> >hether or not one >as dealing >ith a theory 4 >as, of course, trying to seeA an appropriate analogue to Western discourse There is a hypothetical element in the >ay se.ual attributes are classified, and the ne.t chapter elucidates some of the grounds of Ano>ledge by >hich people pro"ide themsel"es >ith e"idence of their po>ers and capacities )' FSocialityF after Wagner D*$%1E 4 prefer FsocialityF to -ardonFs FsociabilityF, dra>n from Simmel, but intend a similar concept -ardon D*$&(:*01E >rites: L;y sociability 4 >ant to understand a frame>orA of Ano>ledge about the >ay in >hich people impinge upon one another Sociability maAes relationshipNsO "isible in their culturally constituted form and also informs these relationships normati"ely Thus it bears a double relationship to social action through the social and moral constitution of relatedness L 7e argues that the page30(% Page 0(& #hamba Dof #ameroonE ha"e Lt>o idioms of sociability,L "i6 consociation Dmatrilateral mediationE and adsociation DpatrilateralE Also see :eatman *$&1 Ddifferent types of socialityE; ;iersacA *$&1 Dgender as refle.i"e discourseE; 7arrison *$&(a Dt>o organi6ational domainsE )* See ;arnett and Sil"erman D*$%$:)(E on the relationship bet>een units and systems The assumptions are open to radical critiGue Mar.ist2Socialist feminism >ould Join >ith those critiGues that regard the indi"idual subJect as constructed by historically specific social formations, >hile 8adical feminists posit se.ed difference not as beyond but constituti"e of DsocialE discourse )) This is the refle.i"ity of Gudeman and PennFs D*$&)E Funi"ersal modelsF Such models in"ol"e secondary elaboration, rationali6ation, and classification from a particular point of "ie>, >hich thus e.ternali6es >hat they Frefer toF or Fstand forF )0 Gudeman and PennFs Flocal modelsF These ha"e a nonreferential character; they do no more than FrepresentF themsel"es They are not a mapping of or reflection on an e.ternal >orld The Western "ie> of FAno>ledgeF by contrast is a model of the uni"ersal Aind; this leads to problems in the matching of informantsF incomplete Ano>ledge of their culture to >hat the obser"er treats them as possessing as a unit, i e , that culture as a >hole 9e>is D*$&'E deals >ith this issue at length and recommends that >e should see the symbols that others manipulate not as they appear to us as Fstanding forF ideas and sentiments but ho> for the people deploying them they function as substitutes, as eGual to the ideas or sentiments themsel"es (: Po>er: #laims And #ounterclaims * 4 gi"e one recent e.ample of this type of argument ;o>den, on the <>oma of the +ast SepiA Pro"ince, presents an analysis of art symbolism that mo"es through the follo>ing stages: D*E Men represent themsel"es to themsel"es as creators to ensure continuing fertility, opposing themsel"es to >omen >ho are seen as destructi"e of these po>ers :et D)E they FsurreptitiouslyF incorporate into their ritual and art a range of obJects associated >ith female fertility 7e notes that men say rituals >ere originally in"ented by >omen, and men stole them a>ay A problem of interpretation arises D0E 4nterpretation one: L>e could say that these obJects constitute signs that the >ider forces >ithin >hich >omenFs reproducti"e po>ers are operating ha"e been e.propriated by men and are firmly under male control L D1E 4nterpretation t>o: Dpresented as a contradiction to the firstE: Lby acAno>ledging that >omen >ere the originators of all life,sustaining ritual men may be tacitly acAno>ledging >hat, at a conscious le"el at least, they are denying, namely that it is >omen, not men, >ho are the prime creators, for it is only >omen >ho can bring forth ne> human lifeL D*$&1:1(%E ) 4n the 7ighlands, female ceremonies at puberty seem restricted to the +astern 7ighlands area, including GahuAu,Gama, ;ena ;ena, Gimi The Gururumba celebrate female gro>th, >here male gro>th has to be induced D/e>man *$6(:&'E 9indenbaum D*$%6E D-oreE, /e>man and ;oyd D*$&)E DA>aE, and

page30(& Page 0($ 7ays and 7ays D*$&)E D/dumbaE describe girlsF nose,bleeding rites at marriage 4n the A>a case this and other pain inflicted on the girl is said to energi6e the bodily substances associated >ith procreation and to increase their strength; the 7aysFs account emphasi6es the controlling role that men play in the >omenFs ceremony @utside the 7ighlands, 9e>isFs D*$&'E analysis of rites for Gnau boys and girls stresses that both are concerned >ith gro>th; Poole on ;imin,<usAusmin rites says that for both boys and girls menstrual contamination must be drained from the male sAull D*$&*:*10E Allen D*$6%E >ould no doubt classify all these as puberty rites, not as initiation, since entry into a female association ne"er appears to be at issue 0 -aithorn >orAed among the <afe, to the east of ;ena ;ena and GahuAu,Gama D7enganofi Sub 5istrictE -aithornFs interests >ere prompted by an analysis of <afe male,female relations that sho>ed that the antagonism model could not be taAen as a description of the social reality of li"ed relations bet>een men and >omen Dsee also -aithorn *$%6E 1 See MeigFs account of the 7ua, in the "icinity of 9ufa and bordering Gimi ( See also the account gi"en by Poole of ;imin,<usAusmin: male and female differ Lin terms of capacities to recei"e, transform, and transmit the "ery substances that form themL D*$&*:*06E 6 4 mean, of course, as it is construed in Melanesian conceptuali6ations Poole D*$&):*1(E has a striAing description of the >ay in >hich ;imin,<usAusmin initiates become absorbed >ith changes in their bodily states during the course of their painful seclusion 7e reports them monitoring their bodies in great detail % My account dra>s only from this single article of 8ubinsteinFsan e.ceptionally helpful introduction to the issues >hich follo> Malo is a small island off the southern tip of +spiritu Santo 5etails on the cultural relationship bet>een the FpatrilinealF Malo and the Sa,speaAers of Pentecost is pro"ided by Allen *$&*b !nliAe Malo, there are t>o >omenFs grades in South Pentecost DSaE but of a minimal political character D=olly *$&1E & @r sacrifice, since pig,Ailling >as concerned >ith the orderly follo>ing of father by son, elders by Juniors, ancestors by descendants Those >ho progressed far up the ranAs are regarded as po>erful Fli"ing ancestorsF $ 5undesFs D*$%6E >orld sur"ey of bullroarers analy6es femini6ing elements in male cults as a result of the latterFs intrinsic homose.ual character 7e understands the FfemaleF elements in such cult acti"ity as symboli6ing menFs desire to li"e >ithout recourse to >omen themsel"es 4t >ill become clear the e.tent to >hich this proprietorial fantasy eludes Melanesian formulations *' This is also a sociological issue: the male spirit that the bride has >ithin her is paternal in origin 4t must be dri"en out and a Fspirit childF from the husbandFs clan substituted in its stead ** A communicational analysis of secrecy, the significance of noise2silence, re"elation2concealment, and the indeterminate nature of Ano>ledge imparted during such seGuencing is gi"en in Sch>immer D*$&'bE *) A striAing e.ample is pro"ided by the -emale Spirit cult in 7agen page30($ Page 06' DA Strathern *$%$E: the all,male participants di"ide themsel"es into a FmenFs houseF and a F>omenFs houseF side *0 Accounts of Paiela, and reference to earlier >orA by Meggitt in the neighboring 4pili area are found in ;iersacA *$&) Dmy main source hereE, *$&0, *$&1 Although a small population, and >ith a Fdescent systemF described as cognatic, the Paiela speaA a language related to +nga Dand to that of the FcognaticF 7uli, to their southE; their central male puberty ritual is similar to the bachelor cult described for Mae +nga by Meggitt D*$61E @n many grounds, including a maJor language di"ide and the presence of these rituals, the congeries of +nga,speaAers are to be distinguished in turn from 7agen; they are aliAe in the scale and organi6ation of ceremonial e.changes Dand see the comparisons dra>n by -eil *$&1aE Paiela e.changes are less comple., but their structures seem to be much closer to those of 7agen than DsayE Gimi @ne >ould not, of course, see the similarities if one started >ith the gross differences bet>een Paiela and 7agen in terms of demographic

and political factors, Fdescent groupF formation, and so on ;iersacA herself compares Paiela gender stereotypes to those of 7agen D*$&1:**$E *1 The ritual foreshado>s their full conJugal status, for >hich it prepares them The seGuence of seclusion and emergence can also be typed as a Fbachelor cultF, since officiants stay unmarried in order to direct the ritual *( MeggittFs summary of his earlier in"estigations in the nearby area D4piliE refers to small, locali6ed patricians D*$6(:)%)E; ;iersacA D*$&0E describes local groups based on a consanguineal nucleus that forms units for bride>ealth and homicide compensations She does not use the term FclanF *6 Gillison D*$&0:1$E comments on the crucial absence of FmalesF from >omenFs anthropophagous meal other than as the body to be eaten What is established Fcollecti"elyF on the basis of shared attributes Da single genderE >ith respect to the opposite se. holds a FparticularF status 4t should be clear that my general debt to GillisonFs >orA goes far beyond these specific citations *% This is striAingly represented in GillisonFs account of female seclusion; as one >oman told her LWe close our doors and the men do not hear the things >e sayL D*$&':*6$, n ))E The Gimi eGuation bet>een the penis and the >hole body is another such construction DGillison *$&0:0%, et seG E 4dentity bet>een flute2penis and the F>hole bodyF of the men de"oured in cannibalism made the bodies definiti"ely FmaleF, as unitary FthingsF en"eloped by the female D*$&0:1&E *& As far as conception beliefs are concerned, Paiela Dand +ngaE, liAe 7agen, en"isage a fetus formed from separate maternal and paternal elements combined together Dcf , ;iersacA *$&0E, >hereas Gimi and other +astern 7ighlands cultures regard the mother as pro"iding an empty "essel to be filled De g , 9angness *$%%:*0E ;iersacA D*$&0:$E specifically argues that LThe notion of bound blood Nin Paiela conception theoryO constitutes an image of antithetical substances locAed in combination, the conJunction of distincti"e groups created first through alliance and then through consanguinity L *$ 7e describes the graphic encapsulation of male spirit figures >ithin co"ert female forms, an interpretation supported by the presence of a band of e.plicit female figures immediately abo"e the principal ro> of male clan spirit faces @b"iously, 4 offer a different interpretation of the relationship in Guestion page306' Page 06* from his o>n, >hich is that the paintings e.press the Lprimacy of female creati"ity, >hich in Abelam terms is natural, o"er male creati"ity >hich is cultural in that male access to supernatural po>er is through ritualL D*$%0:*&$E )' <eesing D*$&):)&E maAes a similar general point about the se.ual referent of symbolism -orge >rites: Lthe phallus among the Abelam is not a simple unitary aggressi"e symbol The most ob"ious Guestion to asA ne.t is >hat the phallus does mean to the AbelamL D*$66:)&E The Guestion is prompted by the regular depiction of a ro> of flying fo.es, and the Abelam identification of the penis of the male flying fo. as a single female breast )* Although there are many differences bet>een Abelam and their Arapesh neighbors, note Tu6inFs report D*$&':*%(*%6E that Arapesh spirit paintings reproduce figures >hose se.if one taAes the identity of the figure as a >holeis ambiguous ;y contrast >ith the ambiguity of the Abelam organ, the ambiguity of the Arapesh >hole is here made up of the mi. of unambiguously male and female elements )) 7o>e"er, >ith respect to the phallic2uterine aspects of certain bullroarers Dthe subJect of 5undesF paperE, Sch>immer D*$&'bE maAes the interesting comment that in one area the double representation possibly connotes a ritual act, that of splitting the coconut The coconut is split in order to be FfedF in the cult,house Splitting is the moment at >hich a potential relation is established Dbet>een fed and feederE )0 7e emphasi6es the importance of function rather than form in the relation bet>een an obJect and its symbol, suggesting >e should regard things not as Fstanding forF but substituting for one another De g , *$&':*$%E )1 The pri"ileging of sight as an instrument of Ano>ledge in Western culture is too big a subJect to do more than mention here Dsee Pla6a *$%&:)*E 4 gi"e brief countermention of the >idespread Melanesian "ie> that appearance is decepti"e, so that the relation bet>een e.ternal surface and inner substance is al>ays a matter for speculation 5ifferent Ainds of Ano>ledge are implied bet>een the idea that sight is a penetration into the

depths of the nature of things and that sight is >itness to re"elation, to >hat is brought to the surface )( Tu6in notes the specific reciprocity in"oAed by Arapesh: LWe initiated them, no> they must initiate our sonsSL D*$&':0)E The result is that Leach initiation class is simultaneously initiator and initiatedL >ith respect to different cult spirits on >hose behalf the men act D*$&):00%, original emphasisE )6 Se.ual intercourse is construed as a deliberately "isible act bet>een the spouses Dthey FseeF each otherE, though hidden from others; >hether or not conception taAes place, and >hether the >omanFs blood is successfully bound by the manFs semen can only be Ano>n after it has happened 4nternal gro>th is co"ert; procreati"e success ho>e"er Dgi"ing birthE is o"ert, and in this sense the Joint reproducti"e acti"ities of the se.es may be classified as o"ert by comparison >ith the >ifeFs secret gro>ing of the husband or the fetus )% @ne might regard sacrifice as a comparable mobili6ation of domestic relations, creating a channel of communication bet>een and thus FseparatingF t>o parties Dancestors and descendantsE >hose relation is predicated on unitary DFnoncommunicati"eFE interests The parties are in a prior asymmetric relation that the separation momentarily eGuali6es page306* Page 06) )& Their relationships are made apparent in that conduct DWagner *$%%aE 6: WorA: +.ploitation At 4ssue * ;ecause of the nature of its transference bet>een persons, commodity may be understood as the e.change form of Fpri"ate propertyF, alienation being the transfer of pri"ate property DGregory *$&):*): FF#ommodity e.change is an e.change of alienable things bet>een transactors >ho are in a state of reciprocal independenceLE The three terms property2pri"ate property2commodity are merged in my account in so far as these form D>ithin capitalist2commodity economiesE a single metaphorical set for conceptuali6ations of Fo>nershipF and FcontrolF, that is, of the manner in >hich persons create relations bet>een themsel"es through them DTaussig *$&':0E ) ;loch D*$%(:)'1E points to the >ide anthropological base to the notion of property relations as types of social relations, property as a Fbundle of rightsF, and so on Dsee abo"e, chap (E @llman D*$%6:*1 ff E emphasi6es the relational import of Mar.Fs categories: L#apital, labor, "alue, commodity, etc , are all grasped as relations L 4ndeed, the critiGue to >hich 4 refer has been reabsorbed into anthropology as belonging to FMar.istF theori6ing 4t is clear that 4 only touch on a tiny portion of Mar.ist theori6ing >ithin anthropology, and not on Mar.Fs at all A thorough,going Mar.ism could not, of course, be eclectic in this manner, nor ignore the primary sources 0 4 refer to FlaborF rather than Flabor po>erF, for the latter indicates an abstract capacity for >orA, a Lproducti"e potential not tied to any particular acti"ityL D@llman *$%6:*%*E that comes under the direction and definition of the appropriator of it 4n the Melanesian conte.t, >orA usually presents itself in a particular form, not necessarily generali6able beyond the relations to >hich it belongs Dsee belo>, n *&E 1 +"aluation is inescapable Dsee 8unciman *$&0:chap (E, that is, it is an integral feature of descripti"e practice The specific e"aluation 4 refer to here is reGuired by the original moti"es of an inGuiry, "i6 in the case of feminist inGuiry >hether or not relations bet>een the se.es are egalitarian ( 4 use the term >ith hesitation, partly because it has different meanings depending on >hich side of the Atlantic one is, partly because anthropologists >ho treat both feminism and Mar.ism do so as much to critici6e as to simply dra> on ideas that may be labelled as one or the other WorAs outside Melanesia that address ideology from a political,economist "ie> >ith particular reference to FMar.istF issues include those of 9eacocA and SacAs mentioned in this chapter; also @F9aughlin *$%1; 8eiter *$%(; Sharma *$&'; #aulfield *$&*; the se"eral contributors to +tienne and 9eacocA *$&*, and to :oung et al *$&*; 7arris and :oung *$&*; and A Whitehead *$&1 6 4n -riedmanFs >ords apropos the social relations of production that dominate the material process of production, L+"ery social system has obJecti"e energy costs of reproduction as >ell as a technologically determined rate of potential surplus, and the society must, in one >ay or another, relate to these obJecti"e conditions of its functioningL D*$%1:11611%E % Thus he obser"es of sibling relations in 7agen: L=ust at the point >here

page306) Page 060 >omen are e.ploited as ne"er before Nintensification of e.change compels increased productionO, an institutionali6ed re,alignment of e.change relationships Nbet>een affinesO >ipes out e.ploitation by causing men to appropriate pigs from their >i"es only to present them to their >i"esF brothersL D*$&):*'%*'&E 4t is not, of course, FreallyF >iped out: the Ain,based Justification for such e.changes merely disguises the fact that the pigs circulate in appropriated form, i e , as >ealth As far as access to this circulation of >ealth is concerned, that a man gi"es to a >ifeFs brother instead of an unrelated partner does not, in the terms of this Aind of argument, maAe his relations >ith his >ife any more eGual Tu6in Dpersonal communicationE points out that he does on the contrary appropriate her sibling =osephides D*$&0:0'00'1E comments on Just such a situation The fact that >ealth goes to her brother should not stop one from asAing >hether the >oman can herself acGuire prestige from the transaction & See A Whitehead D*$&1:*%$E She Guotes PashuAanis >ho Guotes Mar.: LAt the same time therefore that the producer of labour becomes a commodity, and a bearer of "alue, man acGuires his capacity to become a legal subJect and a bearer of rightsL Dfrom + G PashuAanis, La# and Marxism+ 9ondon: 4nAlinAs, *$%&E -or an e.ample of common usage, see +tienne and 9eacocA D*$&*: $E: L4n egalitarian societies it is impossible to alienate people from their right of access to basic resourcesL Nmy emphasisO $ 5eri"ed 4 thinA from an eGuation bet>een the use,"alue of oneFs producti"e acti"ity and its character as the most important of all human functions: LThe human result of the >orAer alienating the use,"alue of his labor is the alienated >orAerL D@llman *$%*:*%*E @llman supplies a general e.position of Mar.Fs thesis about the relationship of man to producti"e acti"ity and to its product Dchaps *$ and )'E The unitary nature of these connections is unremarAed: LThe >orAer puts his life into the obJectL DGuoted by @llman *$%*: *1*E; and the only condition under >hich the product of labor does not belong to the >orAer appears to be >hen it confronts him as an alien po>er, i e , as belonging to someone else D@llman *$%*:*1%E 4 >ould add that it is )ecause persons are thus constructed >ith proprietorship o"er their o>n persons, according to the commodity metaphor, that to share Di e , to share >hat is o>nedE is e"idence of eGuality bet>een them This seems a proper obser"ation to maAe of +uropean ideologies of egalitarianism To suggest that in hunter,gatherer economies FsharingF of itself is e"idence of eGuality seems Guite misplaced 4t of itself does not indicate a measure of eGui"alence of the Aind pro"ided by the +uropean notion that persons in ha"ing property to dispose may dispose of it in eGual portions Dthe common measure of the portions being supplied by its abstract social "alueE +lse>here 4 briefly discuss one set of monotheistic FprecapitalistF concepts that locate an ultimate proprietor beyond the indi"idual person, thereby establishing the indi"idualFs o>n singularity DM Strathern *$&(bE See the history of such ideas presented in 7irst and Woolley D*$&):pt )E *' ;arnett and Sil"erman present these same assumptions as a facet of e"eryday DWesternE models about the indi"idual, >hich sees this entity as both dominating and dominated Thus, the indi"idual is Lproprietor of his or her o>n substantial personL as >ell as being Laspects of the substantial persons of page3060 Page 061 othersL; and the indi"idual is a Lproprietor of property >hich is both a precondition for and an outcome of contractL D*$%$:%(E Proprietorship of another is, in this model, an in"asion of control of that self Dthe otherFs autonomyE, and thus domination ** Gregory D*$&'; *$&):chap ) passimE employs Mar.Fs distinction bet>een producti"e consumption and consumpti"e production 4n producti"e consumption, all production is also consumption in that it in"ol"es the using up of materials and labor energies: people in the form of their labor are turned into things The latter, consumpti"e production, is the re"erse process, the consumption of things necessary for human sur"i"al and reproduction F@bJectsF Ni e , FthingsFO consumed are turned into people 4n his terms, if production as an FobJectificationF process con"erts peopleFs labor and energies into things, consumption as a personification process promotes the sur"i"al of people by con"erting things into persons D*$&):000(E *) This is so not because ideology is false, but because it encapsulates certain Ainds of imaginings and thus certain Ainds of interests The last thing one >ants is to repeat ;arrettFs e.cruciating embarrassment of being Lcaught artlessly counterposing Fmaterial conditionsF and FideologyFL D*$&': &$E in the company of the then ;ritish Mar.ist a"ant,garde The reference is to post,Althusserian de"elopments in the theory of ideology 4n

the >ords of Mc5onough and 7arrison: NAlthusserFsO thesis implies a definite breaA >ith all conceptualisations of ideology as Ffalse consciousnessF or as a distorted representation of reality 4deology is not a representation of reality at all What ideology represents is menFs li"ed relations >ith reality: it is a relation of the second degree Althusser insists that this li"ed relations is necessarily an imaginary Ni e , imaginedO one 4deology then is not a representation of real conditions of e.istence but a representation of an imaginary relationship of indi"iduals to these real conditions Ne.isting relations of productionO D*$%&:*6*%E Anthropologists ha"e particular problems in a cross,cultural conte.t, to do >ith the status of their o>n imaginary constructs, that is, the relationship set up in their accounts in attempting to represent the representations of others The concept of FideologyF signals an a>areness that in order to comprehend these other representations as imaginings, they must sho> them to be of second degree *0 A WeinerFs D*$&'E statement of her position dra>s specific attention to ;ourdieu D*$%%E, as does =osephidesFs D*$&)E She maintains that reciprocity is not an independent mechanism precipitating social forms DFe.change systemsFE of its o>n but part of the larger system of FreproductionF This rests on the cyclical >orld "ie> to be found, she argues, in Melanesia >here Le.change interaction is reflecti"e of the Ainds of symbolic and material "alues a society accords its reproducti"e and regenerati"e flo>L D*$&':%)E *1 -or Ainship, the point has been long stressed by Godelier De g , *$%(; compare the discussion in ;loch *$&0:*6%E Whate"er organi6es the functions of production and distribution, L4t is the mechanism performing these functions >hich dominates and the representation of the mechanism dominates the concerns of people precisely because it acts and regulates the mode of productionL D;loch *$&0:*66E ModJesAa is e.plicit as far as Ainship in the political economy of the 5una is concerned: Lrelations of production are relations of page3061 Page 06( AinshipL D*$&):(*E 7ence his earlier point that production is thus represented as that of persons as lineage and family members *( ModJesAa D*$&):$(E points out the significance of the di"ision into Fhouse pigsF and Fe.change pigsF in systems of de"eloped ceremonial e.change, citing -eilFs e"idence for +nga See A StrathernFs D*$6$E original formulation of FproductionF and FfinanceF in raising >ealth for mo.a Dceremonial e.changeE 7o>e"er, -eil himself De g , *$&1b:**)E do>nplays the disJunction bet>een the categories, pointing out that all Fe.changeF pigs are also produced at some point as FhouseF pigsS *6 She emphasi6es that in spite of the claims <e>a >omen maAe on the products of >orA, she enJoys them only as long as she remains married LA husband and >ife appear to ha"e eGual rights to their Joint income, but if they separate she forfeits her in"estmentL D*$&0:0''E @n di"orce, >omen forfeit further claims to the land they ha"e >orAed upon This is also true in 7agen *% =osephides D*$&):0E, after ;ourdieu D*$%%:*$)E: LNeO"erything conspires to conceal the relationship bet>een >orA and its productL D*$%%:*%6E ;ourdieu notes that >hat pre"ents the peasant Leconomy from being grasped as an economyL is the impossibility of thinAing FFof nature as a ra> material, or, conseGuently, to see human acti"ity as la)our+ i e , a manFs struggle against natureL D;ourdieu *$%%:*%), original emphasisE #on"ersely, one may add, an FeconomicF conceptuali6ation of labor >ill be bound up >ith a concept of nature *& F9abor po>erF is the abstract form in >hich particular labors present themsel"es as general FsocialF labor Dsee n 0E As a commodity, labor po>er may be regarded as a product of domestic labor ;ut domestic labor itself remains pri"ate because it is not abstract laborthe only form in >hich pri"ate labor becomes social labor under commodity production DSmith *$%&:)'$E 5omestic labor can sell its product, Smith argues D*$%&:)'$E, but does not thereby become eGuali6ed >ith other forms #ommodity production, he notes, Le.presses the specific historical form of eGuali6ation of concrete labours as homogeneous NGuantifiableO labour N>hileO domestic labour is not eGual and interchangeable >ith other concrete laboursL DSmith *$%&:)'%E *$ See also -eil D*$%&; *$&)bE Tombema +nga li"e to the northeast of Mae +nga 9iAe 7agen, there is a highly elaborated sphere of ceremonial e.change, although -eil also claims a number of contrasts Principally, he argues, Tombema retain the "alue of pigs in e.change Dand thus the "alue of FproductionFE in contrast to the 7agen speciali6ation in FfinanceF De"inced in the emphasis on shell "aluables in 7agen

prestationsE )' 4n fact he D*$&1b:)1)E maAes this into a general assertion that >here production for e.change is elaborated on the base of pigs Dnot shellsE, ties through and in"ol"ing >omen are "alued and >omenFs position is enhanced, contra ModJesAa *$&) )* 4 find his emphasis odd after the description of menFs and >omenFs Joint acti"ities in production DAre pigs not also the FpropertyF of the men >hose labor >ent into themME 4n these terms 4 >ould regard the association of Fhouse pigsF and domestic labor >ith >omen as gender ideology 7o>e"er, -eil argues page306( Page 066 for a complementary relationship bet>een e.change and production in such a >ay as to maAe the prominence of men in one and of >omen in the other non,problematic ;oth se.es taAe LJoint, mutual decisionsL in this single process D-eil *$&1b:&'E )) ModJesAa obser"es of 5una: There is no Guestion of men being thought of as non,labourers The domination and presumably e.ploitation of >omen by men must be understood in terms of the relations of t>o classes of labourers, e.changing products and ser"ices men are the direct producers of the means of production Nin preparing gardensO >hile >omen are the direct producers of subsistence and >ealth in the form of pigs D*$&):6$E )0 =osephides D*$&0:0'(E notes 9edermanFs D*$&':1$0, original emphasisE discussion of Mendi group displays: an e"aluation of acti"ities in terms of male2female and group2net>orA distinctions means that Lin formal conte.ts, not only are >omen ruled off stage, but so also are the FpersonalF identities of menL D9ederman *$&':1$0E Men eclipse an aspect of their o>n identities )1 The point is deri"ed from 5amon D*$&', *$&0aE !se,interest is appropriated by both husband and >ife; the husband restores the pig to the household so that its use "alue may be reali6ed, undoing the original transformation that put an embargo on this reali6ation The man determines ho> this taAes place 4n distinguishing the special nature of this male acti"ity, the >orA that >ent into the production of pigs may be regarded as especially FfemaleF )( @r eGually the idea of a di"ided self, >hich is part of the same proposition 4 bring these concepts together to indicate ho> aspects of the one metaphorical set are raided for different analytical purposes The problem is that the set does not allo> an adeGuate entry into a multiple construction of personhood that does not rest on a model of a #hole potentially di"isible into parts DThe FunityF of the Melanesian person is achie"ed through decomposition, not transcendence E 4n terms of the present contrast it belongs to FcommodityF rather than FgiftF thinAing 4 Ju.tapose the follo>ing passage from <uhnFs account of the constitution of subJecti"ity posed by 9acan and its relationship to the structure of pri"ate property The conte.t is the infantFs grasp of his o>n reflection, >hich Lis the moment of simultaneous unity and separation, in that the body is e.perienced as >hole and yet as outside the pre"ious operation of the Ne.periencedO dri"esL D*$%&:6'E She >rites: The non,unified character of the subJect posed by psycho,analysis is argued in relation to the implications of the splitting in"ol"ed in the specular relation of the mirror phase, so that the operation of ideology is seen as a li"ed relation of the 4maginary ego,ideal, the unified self, and hence as in"ol"ing an attempted closure or recuperation of the subJect2obJect split, an 4maginary coherence The >orA of ideology is to construct a coherent subJect D*$%&:6061E +arlier she >rites that Lthe operation of ideology is to reconstruct the coherent subJect problematised by the "ery splitting >hich defines this specular relationL D*$%&:($E /otions of unitary proprietorship offer one such set of ideological operations -or a eulogy to the restoration of unity through a celebration of use,"alue production as against e.change "alue, see #aulfield: Lproduction for page3066

Page 06% use,"alue in"ol"eNsO a unity bet>een thinAing and doing, thus maAing the process of labor a creati"e, learning e.perienceL D*$&*:)*)E )6 Thus 4 do not utili6e a contrast bet>een con"eyance and con"ersion, ;ohannan and ;ohannan D*$6&:)01E #on"eyances refer to an e.change of unliAe items >ithin the same ranA category; con"ersions to the e.change of items across category boundaries FSubsistence >ealthF and Fprestige >ealthF are their terms )% -or Mar., FlaborF is al>ays instituted as an alienated producti"e acti"ity D@llman *$%6:*6$E )& 7o>e"er, this raises a Guestion about the indigenous limits of the gift economy and ho> one should interpret resistance to enchainment Dsee belo>E Thus Sch>immer D*$%$E, defining alienation as occurring >hen no eGui"alent gift is returned by those >ho e.tract a personFs products, points to the phenomenon, marginal in traditional Melanesian society, of persons >ho fail to get others to recogni6e their claims 7e does not regard this as applying to >omen as a category )$ See for e.ample Gregory D*$&):*)11E 4n so far as 4 ha"e dra>n on FMar.istF analyses, 4 ha"e done so through a special reading of them 4 appreciate <alpana 8amFs obser"ation Dpers comm E that 4 adopt a bourgeois Dproperty orientedE standpoint myself and fail to incorporate a collecti"ist or socialist reading of political economy >ritings My account of Fgift economiesF thus neglects to gi"e >eight to the manner in >hich labor might be sociali6ed, i e , the product returned to the community as a >hole This is also an important strand in critiGues of e.ploitation that distinguish the simple e.traction of surplus from differences in the manner of appropriation Dsome of the contributions to <ahn and 9lobera *$&*E As in SacAsFs account, communal appropriation of surplus labor can be understood as a condition of none.ploitation 4 >ould add, ho>e"er, that to assume the absence of alienation under conditions of communal as opposed to pri"ate o>nership belongs in my mind to an ideology of natural F>holenessF >hich is itself a bourgeois fabrication See ;onteFs D*$&*E account of ho> surplus labor products may be channelled into the reproduction of the FcommunityF in noneconomic form, e g , in order to reproduce certain religious relations, but the resultant cattle fetishism in the pastoralist societies >ith >hich he is concerned may be analy6ed as a reali6ation of surplus and the alienated form of labor 4n short, my bourgeois reading is in response to >hat 4 detect as a strong pri"ate property ideology in much anthropological >riting This defines a limit to my enterprise 0' Thus he states that a herd of pigs belongs to a >ife by "irtue of the FlaborF she has in"ested, though the comment confusingly follo>s a discussion in >hich he compares the different relations >omen ha"e >ith their fathers and their husbands concerning Fo>nershipF D*$&1b:*****)E 4t is clear that a >oman Fo>nsF a pig herd through the >orA she does as a #ife; moreo"er, the Jurisdiction she has o"er the disposal of pigs is restricted to those she has produced and not to those she has not produced This leads -eil to analy6e pigs as a form of FpropertyF created by the >omanFs laborhence as pigs pass through "arious transactions on the e.change roads, the control >hich the original Fo>nersF can e.ercise becomes tenuous D*$&)b:01*E -or if Jurisdiction page306% Page 06& is the criterion of o>nership he maAes it out to be, then pigs passing out of >omenFs hands compromises their inalienability -eil goes on to say that in the course of the e.changes the Guestion of alienability is no longer at issue The pigs may be Falienated from the producersF controlF, but among nonproducers are being e.changed for ad"antage and prestige 7o>e"er D*$&1a:%0, n 01E there is a final eGui"ocation in his account: LNPOigs are not ultimately alienated from their producers The long e.change chains NmeanO, ho>e"er, that FcontrolF, often temporary, does not al>ays rest >ith the producers, usually >omen ;oth men and >omen suffer these organisational dilemmas, and it is an outcome of the comple.ities and structure of an e.change system >hich has rapidly e.panded, not a "ehicle by >hich >omen are e.ploited by men 0* =osephides D*$&(b:*'**E properly points to the inalienability of land in <e>a, for instance MenFs o>nership is not a Guestion of their being able to control and dispose of the land but deri"es from their indissoluble relation to it DWomenFs name is not indissolubly linAed to land in the same >ay E 4n Sch>immerFs D*$%$E terms, there is an FidentificationF bet>een land and men 4t is important to note that the identification is >ith the land in a pre>orAed sense; it is not because of menFs >orA that the land is theirs

Dthough the >orA of particular persons may be the basis on >hich some men of a clan group establish internal claims to particular pieces as against other men of the clanE 0) So that an antithesis is produced bet>een other,directed and self,directed >orA WorA is not a.iomatically Fself,e.pressi"eF Das self,acti"ity that reali6es the potential of human nature; @llman *$%6:*'*E @n the contrary, to do oneFs o>n >orA in reference to oneself may either ha"e the connotations of absol"ing others from any responsibility DFhis2her o>n doingSFE or else of creating a special relationship, as 4 describe shortly for >omen and their horticultural products, again a deliberate e.clusion of others 00 Surplus presupposes the creation of "alues in addition to the intrinsic, original "alue of things Dthe reali6ation of surplus through the relationship bet>een e.change "alue and use "alueE Such ideas proJect a le"el of FrealityF or Fnatural lifeF upon >hich society is seen to perform its operations @n the one hand a real concrete increase of items is supposed; on the other hand surplus contains the specific notion that things can be deployed in >ays other than those in >hich they originally manifest themsel"es This is one source for the Western metaphor of FproductionF DSahlins *$%6E; ;onte D*$&*:0&E, on the determination of labor under capitalism, >rites Lonly labour >hich produces surplus "alue is producti"e L 01 The follo>ing obser"ation >as also prompted in discussion >ith 5aniel Miller, for >hose insight 4 am most grateful; and >ith /icholas ModJesAa >ho, in commenting on GregoryFs thesis of the FpersonificationF process, noted its concern >ith the consumption of the meanings of things but not >ith their materiality %: Some 5efinitions * The present formulation re"ises the argument in M Strathern D*$&1bE There 4 stressed the personification process in the production of >ealth items page306& Page 06$ and detached the Melanesian concept of gift as referring to persons and their relations from Western concepts of FobJectsF as opposed to FsubJectsF 4 no> address the nature of obJectification in a gift economy The article refers to this as FdetachabilityF, but my terminology >as confusing =osephidesFs comments Dpersonal communicationE on earlier formulations of mine ha"e been a notably important stimulus here, for >hich 4 record my gratitude ) $oman refers to directed action, >hether to>ards the self or to>ards others The concept cuts across the Western indi"idual2society split that represents a >hole split into parts DA Strathern *$&*bE 4 thanA Andre> Strathern for discussion on this point and for his linguistic elucidation in general 0 To refer bacA to Sabarl: ;attaglia D*$&0:)$&E notes that the acti"e and dynamic ga)a relations carry o"ert reference to a contrast bet>een male and female, >here the la)e support idioms do not 1 See WagnerFs Fob"iationF: La metaphor for metaphor, FnamingF it by substituting its effectL D*$%&:0)E ( The ;imin,<usAusmin of the West SepiA imagine the shado> of the corporeal body after death to be androgynous, a combination of the procreati"e contributions of males and females DPoole *$&*E The subJect of PooleFs paper is a sacred androgyne >ho has been remo"ed from the concerns of the domestic,familial domain to a public Dthough largely secludedE role as ritual officiant for initiation seGuences She is endo>ed >ith the Gualities of both se.es; he notes that the fertile fluids of this sacred >oman are La female manifestation of male substanceL D*$&*:*(6E To be made acti"e, ho>e"er, in"ol"es reduction of this identity Thus during the ;imin,<usAusmin boyFs transformation into a reproducer, if his androgynous body,shado> appears, it must be dri"en a>ay DPoole *$&):**1E Male bones once e.tracted from the androgynous body become an acti"e force DPoole *$&1; A Weiner *$&)E 6 Western recognition of a musical instrument as a se.ual obJect >ould be based on the idea that it must e.press or symboli6e in e.aggerated form something that a person cannot openly say about him2herself #redulity is strained by the thought that it could be eGually a male or female obJect ;ut then our attention >ould be directed to the aesthetic form as the in"ented, cultural dimension; the music >ould be taAen for granted as an a.iomatic feature of musical instruments To the Melanesian cult performer, the emissions are the crucial mystery % 4 ha"e had the ad"antage of reading =ames WeinerFs doctoral thesis D*$&0E, >hich >ill appear as &he Heart of the 'earshell Din pressE

&: 8elations Which Separate * ;attagliaFs D*$&0a, *$&0bE analysis of the combination and separation of male and female identities in Sabarl mortuary ritual is pertinent 4 am, in addition, grateful to Martha Macintyre for discussions on Massim societies and respect her reser"ations about the ethnographic e.trapolations on >hich the follo>ing is based Gregory includes the .ula in his general account, arguing that, as a system of incremental gift e.change, it differs little from systems found in the 7ighlands D*$&):*$(E ) Throughout the matrilineal systems of the Massim, the issue of De.trin, page306$ Page 0%' sicE male >orA is important >ith respect to the DintrinsicE uterine identity of the manFs children -urther afield, 4 ha"e found both /ashFs discussion of the /ago"isi D*$%1E of southern ;ougain"ille and +psteinFs D*$%$E psychoanalytically inspired account of Tolai D/e> ;ritainE shell money illuminating 0 4n anticipation of later arguments Dchap $E, 4 note that the food is FhisF because the coupleFs >orA is formally defined as creating a product for the husband 4t does not FmediateF a relationship bet>een father and child but rather conflates their corporeal identities @nly >hen the child is reco"ered by the subclan Dhis motherFs sideE, during ceremonies at death, does the fatherFs Ain DfatherFs sideE reco"er the food Dseed materialE implanted in the child D5amon *$&0a:0*6E Goods classified as male are gi"en to the childFs subclan in return for goods classified as female These female goods include large Guantities of uncooAed yams; >ithin the o"erall female category, yam, they are of the male type They are treated as seed yams, and restore to the fatherFs subclan the original food >ith >hich he fed the child What is restored to the subclan is thus similar to that lost: there is no transformation of this food into some other item As 5amon says, for the loss of the brotherFs male >orA, his subclan recei"es in the yam seeds the >here>ithal to produce again 1 When her brotherFs >ife gi"es birth, the first e.crement of the child is handed to her, in recognition of this lien, but she thro>s it a>ay This e"idence of her brotherFs >orA does not come to her in consumable form ( A Weiner D*$%6:*)0E elaborates on a similar situation in the Trobriand 4slands 6 @ne is reminded here of the epilogue to A Weiner *$%6, and the strong contrast the author dra>s bet>een >omenFs role in the regeneration of Ainship and menFs seeAing reno>n through independent prestige,maAing transactions That Ain groups on Muyu> are seen as disposing of detachable parts of themsel"es in female form reappears in the dogma that represents the society as di"ided into clans >hich symmetrically e.change >omen bet>een themsel"es D5amon *$&0a:0'60'%E % As she describes for Ga>a .itomu, in another part of the .ula ring, absolute rights o"er the disposal of these obJects is combined >ith the fact that they are inalienable from the producers D*$%%:1116E -or a rather different analysis, see Macintyre D*$&1E >ho Aeeps the term Fsemi,alienableF to refer to the disposability of .itom#a in Tubetube @n the Trobriands, .itoma are "aluables that are not yet part of any .ula road or >hich ha"e left a road DA Weiner *$%6:*)$, *&'E 4 thanA Annette Weiner for allo>ing me to see unpublished materials of hers on the Trobriands & #on"ersely, Muyu> conceptuali6e .itoum as Fproducti"eF items De g , 5amon *$&0a:)&(E They are apprehended as things that can be used to maAe something else M#al7veigun on the other hand are regarded as Ffinished articlesF $ Se"eral of these points bear comparison >ith Mac9eanFs D*$&(E pro"ocati"e analysis of political and domestic relations in Maring *' This is increment not surplus, for there is no e.ternal measure of this difference: the distinction bet>een the mo.a component and debt lies only >ithin the histories of particular concrete relationships page30%' Page 0%* ** This >ould appear to apply to pigs only; there is not the space here, unfortunately, to argue about the mutual metaphori6ation of pigs as shells and shells as pigs De"en though they appear to originate in Guite different relationships; see notes *$, )', in chap 6E

*) M Strathern D*$&*a:*&**&1E notes certain rhetorical conte.ts in >hich relations bet>een spouses are compared to relations >ith clansmen and >ith male allies2enemies *0 7ence the FtricAF of the mo.a gambit DA Strathern *$%*:$&E that defies translation into numerical gain and loss The numbers at any one moment merely stipulate increment and debt *1 Sch>immer D*$%0:&6E dra>s on 9R"i,StraussFs analyses of identifications, as those bet>een sacrificer and "ictim, and specifically acAno>ledges his insight apropos the identity of something intended to be gi"en to another: L4f >e produce something that is intended to be gi"en a>ay, it >as called into being by a prior relationship bet>een donor and recipientL D*$%0:*%', emphasis remo"edE *( This is an attempt to describe the conceptual basis of e.change, not a sociological analysis of the Aind amply offered in the 7agen ethnography Thus the units of mo.a e.change, >hile in"ariably concei"ed agnatically, are not al>ays of the order of clans The organi6ation of ceremonial e.change in fact taAes place in conte.ts in >hich the particular political identities of the partners are highly rele"antthese identities feed into enmities, ri"alries, and alliances Mo.a also mobili6es Ainship identities, for e.ample >hen an occasion is said to compensate matrilateral Ain for some form of nurture; but this is "ery much in the nature of a prete.t These Ain ties are taAen for granted; they are not themsel"es altered in the process of the transaction DA Strathern *$%&E *6 The image of Fflo>F has captured the imaginations of a number of Melanesianists5 ;ro>n D*$&'E; A Weiner De g , *$&'E; @F7anlon and -ranAland Din pressE, not to speaA of Watson >ho entitled a paper LSociety as @rgani6ed -lo>L D*$%'E Gregory D*$&):chap 0E refers to "elocity To be true to indigenous metaphors, it must not be things that flo> but relations: con"entional social life Fflo>sF more or less spontaneously in the >orld, as Westerners might imagine time flo>ing DWagner *$%%b:0$%E Muyu> do not in"ent the flo> of relations: they maAe relations appear by differentiating male from female "aluables and thus one e.change partner from another; 7agen men do so by incremental additions that similarly differentiate the partners They stri"e for the replication of appearance itself D"elocityE Kula and mo.a "aluables thus obJectify the speeding up effect that >ill demonstrate the effecti"eness of their efforts According to further Massim idioms "aluables F>alA aroundF, going liAe people along FpathsF De g , A Weiner *$%6:*&*E Against the smooth, uninterrupted desirability of flo>, they sho> all the recalcitrance of human tra"ellers, getting di"erted, being sho>, losing their >ay *% 7agen affines and matrilateral Ain form only a part of a more general category of mo.a partner; in Tombema +nga by contrast Dsee chap 6E ceremonial e.change DteeE is al>ays conducted bet>een persons >ho regard a linA through >omen as intrinsic to the relationship bet>een them D-eil *$&1b: *(6ffE This contributes, it seems, to a characteri6ation of tee partners as un, page30%* Page 0%) eGual to one another Asymmetry comes not simply from the e.change in Guestion, the alternating indebtedness created by the tee >ealth, but also by this prior Ainship DWhat -eil refers to as complementarity, ho>e"er, is not institutionali6ed to the degree found in many 9o>lands /e> Guinea societies; asymmetry is not Ffi.edF into an enduring perception of imbalance bet>een >ife,gi"ers and >ife,taAers, motherFs brothers and sisterFs sons Although maternal Ain are Lo>ners of the childL D-eil *$&1b:*($E and compensation must be paid for inJury and death Dcompare Meggitt *$6(E, it is not this field of relationships on >hich tee partnerships are specifically built -eil himself notes that brothers, in,la> form the largest category of tee partners E @"erall, Tombema partnerships are not generali6able to the same e.tent as in 7agen >here ties through >omen, >hether they are or are not a rationale for a particular mo.a relationship, are not intrinsic to the temporary ineGuality set up by the mediation of >ealth obJects -eil emphasi6es their complementary nature and the noncompetiti"e, cooperati"e nature of tee partnerships #ompetition in Tombema is reser"ed instead for that body of men >ho do construct relations >ith one another on a generali6ed basisbet>een clansmen and bet>een clans >ho are Lindistinguishable from each other e.cept by nameL D-eil *$&1b:*(%E *& This need is created by the substance taAing one of t>o forms, >ith distincti"e effect: >omenFs substance DbloodE is al>ays in sufficient supply, >hereas menFs DsemenE is not 4n the light of the remainder of this chapter, some correlates of this disparity are briefly sAetched

A 5aribi embryo is regarded as formed from the contributions of both parents, in the sense that children manifest the substance flo> of t>o linealities, from mother and from father There is an asymmetry bet>een >ife,gi"ers and >ife,taAers, ho>e"er, in bride>ealth e.changes Wife,taAers gi"e male items and Lrepresent their flo> to the >ife,gi"ers as that of maleness,L gi"ing meat and other adJuncts of male producti"ity DWagner *$%%a:6)&E; this set of men also represents its relations to its o>n offspring in terms of male flo> They regard the lineal flo> of the >ife,gi"ers as that of female substance and recei"e from the >ife,gi"ers female >ealth items Wife,gi"ers themsel"es regard the gi"ing of their >oman as their o>n lineal flo> of FmaleF substance: but in the items that accompany this gift they represent this flo> as FfemaleF Din barA cloth, net bags, and adJuncts of female producti"ityE, and distinguish it from >hat >ill be passed on to their offspring A transformation thus taAes place that >e can compare to that of mo.a Women emerge as the detachable obJects of mediation Their persons embody a male flo> from their Ainsmen that the husbandFs Ain interpret as female flo> 5eparting from their Ainsmen as partible metonymic gifts, one could say, they present themsel"es to their affines as metaphoric gifts, totali6ing the identity of the maternal connection *$ 9a -ontaineFs D*$%&; *$&*E argument about the importance of menFs domestic status to their Fadult rolesF and the significance of maAing them into fathers has been influential here 5eri"ed in the first place from African material, she intends its general application, though my Melanesian emphasis turns it some>hat )' 4 refer the reader to 7erdtFs ethnography for an e.plication of the rela, page30%) Page 0%0 tionship bet>een the cult participants according to the initiation stage they ha"e reached /o"ice refers to the Junior boys in the early stages of the seGuence >ho are fellated by more senior participants )* 4n the conte.t of analy6ing commodity obJectification, Mac<innon >rites about fetishism as a Western fi.ation on dismembered body parts She remarAs: L9iAe the "alue of a commodity, >omenFs se.ual desirability is fetishi6ed: it is made to appear the Guality of the obJect itself, spontaneous and inherentL D*$&):)6E @bJects of desire are indeed the fetishes of a commodity economy DGregory *$&):%E 7erdt argues that the Sambia boys come to e.perience the flutes as both penis and breast; the subJect matter of this confrontation remains in his account an orientation out from the self, to>ards others, >ho then assume an obJect position: LThe focus of initiatory symbolism NisO on the childFs tie to his motherL D*$&):&*E The initiate is thus seen as ha"ing to redirect his primordial urges and feelings from one obJect of desire onto another )) 4n terms of the particular relations of indi"iduals, ho>e"er, a boyFs ritual sponsor Da pseudo,Ainsman >ho combines maternal and paternal attributes D7erdt *$&1b:*&&E, is emphatically not his homose.ual partner Dsee n )$ belo>E 4 >ould add that metaphorically the body of men as a >holesenior and Junior, sponsors and partnersbecomes >ithin the cult house a body of FchildrenF, produced by se.ual interchanges bet>een men and >omen >hich ha"e taAen place outside D4n one of their aspects the flutes cry out for milA N7erdt *$&)a:%&O; they Nthe menO are also children Nsee belo>O E )0 4t is superfluous to add that it is only 7erdtFs full reportage and analysis that maAes further e.trapolation both possible and of interest )1 4 o>e this specific analysis to GillisonFs profound e.position of Gimi practices, including >orA in unpublished papers >hich 4 ha"e had the pri"ilege of seeing DApropos the gender of the flutes, note that bamboo containers may also be regarded as "aginas N7erdt *$&*:)('O E )( The possibility of their being seen to do so o"er t>o generations is blocAed by marriage con"entions that pre"ent close Ain from marrying )6 Semen flo> mirrors marriage transactions bet>een groups: the same clan that donates a >ife also contains men >ho are appropriate homose.ual partners, including actual brothers,in,la> A man may thus inseminate both his >ife and her younger initiate brother D7e is thought to Fgro>F the >ife as >ell as the boy E ;ecause of sister,e.change, this direction may be re"ersed for others of the manFs clan D7erdt *$&1b:*$0*$1E

)% This is significant for the analysis of siblingship, as <elly maAes plain in his description of similar relations in +toro, on the Papuan plateau <elly notes that Lbrother and sister ha"e analogous relationships of se.ual partnership to the sisterFs spouseL D*$%%:)%'E A manFs sisterFs husband is the ideal homose.ual partner D*$%%:)0)E True sister,e.change, >hen it taAes place, enables brother,sister pairs to continue in co,residence after marriage D*$%%:*06, *1&*1$E @rdinarily, sistersF husbands >ill be older than >i"esF brothers, an asymmetry >hich one might conJecture maAes this category similar to that of the motherFs brother in other 7ighlands Ainship systems Dan e.ogenous source of substanceE This may or may not hold for Sambia, but 4 note 7erdtFs page30%0 Page 0%1 suggestion D*$&1b:*&(E that the symboli6ation of the adult maleFs semen replenishment Dfrom a treeE is not symbolic insemination but symbolic breast,feeding )& A husband prepares his >ifeFs body for se.ual intercourse by initially feeding her as he >ill ha"e fed her Fyounger brotherF 4t is this semen >hich is regarded particularly as creating breast milA in her Dfor his2her childE )$ The eGuation is concealed, ho>e"er, by marriage arrangements that emphasi6e that actual se.ual contacts are only possible among unrelated people A boyFs ritual sponsor is called FmotherFs brotherF and se.ual contact bet>een them is prohibited D7erdt *$&1b:*&%*&&E @ne may note here the similar concealment of +toro FmoietiesF in the possible eGuation bet>een mother and >ife D<elly *$%%:)'0E $: -orms Which Propagate * Some e"idence for 7agen is gi"en in M Strathern D*$&1bE, but the phenomenon is >idespread 7agen >omen Dnot menE may be referred to as mel+ FthingsF; but see n 0 belo> ) Marshall D*$&0:$E discusses e.amples of complementary relations bet>een cross,se. siblings 7e cites the <uma DWahgiE: LWi"es, they say, are e.pendable, because a man can al>ays get another, but he has no >ay of replacing his sister 7is sister has a >omb The >omb in her body is the one that >ould ha"e been in his o>n if he had been a female 4t is a short step to considering it as indeed his o>n >omb, though situated outside his body #ross,se. siblings together constitute a complete human beingL D8eay *$%6:&'E The >ealth symboli6es that part of the complete being >hich is detachablefrom the >omanFs point of "ie>, that part of her relationship >ith her clan that allo>s or compels her to mo"e a>ay; other aspects of her clan identity Dthe FnameF she carriesE she is not separated from, for it is such she brings to her affines 0 See n *& in chap & The conditions under >hich >hole male persons are reali6ed as >ealth in 7agen are also conditions under >hich a man is e.tracted from his agnates as a collecti"ity, namely >hen he dies at the hands of another 7omicide compensation for inJury to the clan replaces the person of the man much as bride>ealth replaces the persons of clan sisters 8eparations made for men lost in >ar are thus distinct from regular mortuary payments 4n the latter case, it is the deceasedFs maternal clan >ho reali6e his person as >ealth SisterFs sons are, of course, a detachable FpartF of the maternal clan 1 8ather than referring to subclan, 4 ha"e retained A WeinerFs o>n use of dala for >hat she calls a lineage Dsee *$%6:chap )E ( 5amon D*$&0a:0))0)0E discusses differences in Ainship terminology as part of a >ider set of differences bet>een Muyu> and Trobriand Fcirculation formsF and Ainship transformations Dsee also 5amon *$&0b:0*)0*0E 6 WomenFs sAirts and menFs a.es are, it seems, distincti"e >ealth obJects only on the Trobriands DA Weiner *$&0:*6', *6%E % A Weiner *$%6:**) describes ho> at one stage of the mortuary ceremonies, the male and female Ain of the deceased each carry gifts, the men male >ealth and the >omen female >ealth, to the >ido>2erFs dala 4 refer to trans, page30%1

Page 0%( actions bet>een spouses, but of course the father is also an important affinal figure & ;rother and sister do maAe small pri"ate gifts to one another, and publicly a >oman helps the brother in duties performed for his children DA Weiner *$%6:)'&E ;ut they mainly FtransactF "ia the acti"ities of their spouses D/ote that by contrast >ith Muyu>, a >oman does recei"e the products of her brotherFs >orA in consumable form E 4t should be added that a brother is not the only man >ho supplies a >oman >ith yams, and 4 ha"e simplified the account here in focussing upon him A >oman recei"es yams from her father, for instance, for >hich she maAes a return of female >ealth to his dala DA Weiner *$%&:*&'E $ ;rindley D*$&1E brings together e"idence for the Trobriand eGuation of yams and children and for the acti"ity of garden >orA and childbirth DSee A Weiner *$%6:chap &, esp *$6*$%, )'%)*' E *' And my account dra>s from ethnographic records >here the t>o are often conflated Thus 4 ha"e picAed out some of Malino>sAiFs obser"ations as indicating grounds on >hich to critici6e others: so 4 accuse him on his o>n Fe"idenceF of conflating a crucial distinctionS ** Perhaps this is ho> one should interpret the e.plicit complementarity of male and female contributions to gro>th in yam magic spells DA Weiner *$%6:*$6E *) See D7erdt *$&1:*&'E The container image is >idespread in the +astern 7ighlands De g , Godelier N*$&):*1O reports that the ;aruya father is said to maAe and feed the body of the childE 4n Sambia, a manFs semen forms a pool in the >omb >hich e"entually coagulates into sAin and bone The fetus is graphically described as encased in blood D7erdt *$&*:*$6*$%E 4n e.pelling the blood, the >oman also e.pels the semen,fetus 7ere the disposability of female blood is emphasi6ed and e.aggerated in their approach to menstruation, a topic >hich Trobrianders treat seemingly lightly *0 What is true of gender is also true of the 7agen domains of Fthe domesticF and Fthe >ildF DM Strathern *$&'E; the one e.ists as a counterpart >orld to the other *1 My rendering of this obser"ation has been sharpened by con"ersations >ith 8ichard Werbner and the opportunity of reading his contribution DFFTricAster and the +ternal 8eturn: Self,reference in West SepiA World 8ene>alLE to ;ernard =uilleratFs symposium, &he Mother/s 0rother is the 0reast: Ritual and Meaning in the *est !epi. Dn d E 4 am "ery grateful for his insights *( 8ecall that >ealth e.changes distinguish female dala members as dealing >ith female >ealth and male dala members >ith male >ealth The t>o are held distinct, not merged *6 4t is >orth noting that 4 Aeep tracA of the ideas that come from GillisonFs >orA in order to maAe e.plicit the specific form >hich certain issues taAe in Gimi Dsee pp 1(16E 7ere, my account also dra>s indirectly on GillisonFs further essay on the motherFs brother Din pressE The blood of a Gimi >omanFs first menses is in particular thought of as paternal Salisbury suggests that a Siane child is composed of paternal spirit in the form of semen and of maternal spirit in the form of blood D*$6(:($E; the t>o types appear to be "ersions of lineage spirit DThat one comes from an e.ogenous source, the maternal lineage, page30%( Page 0%6 is no contradiction E Women continuously produce spirit, >hich Salisbury also notes taAes the form of Fpaternal bloodF D*$6(:%)E ;ut at "arious points in their maturation, they are also FfedF spirit, in both male DporAE and female form DopossumE At marriage, the feeding of porA becomes separated from the transmission of the FpureF lineage spirit >hich is retained by her natal Ain D*$6(:%1E *% Menstruation is al>ays said to be caused by a husband, the first menses by the >omanFs Ffirst husbandF, the moon 4n the ritual, the father,in,la> offers the girl her husbandFs F>aterF DsemenE, >hile the initiand responds she is only thirsty for the >ater of her father DGillison *$&':*($E *& 8eplication is deliberately enacted The ceremony of bride,transfer2birth >hich Se.ton describes for 5aulo #or. meri D*$&):*%$E employs doubles: t>o >omen play the part of bride,gi"er2mother to the bride, recei"er2daughter group, >ho also pro"ide t>o >omen The latter pair Jointly carry a>ay the child

*$ L4n order to taAe root and prosper, ne> life must achie"e a state of union >ith the female As one man e.pressed it, F4n song, the >omanFs auna Nlife forceO and the foodFs auna are made one That is ho> the food gro>s biggerSFL DGillison *$&':*1&E )' = Weiner D*$&):)%E notes that >hether food is or is not recogni6ed as being transformable into "ital substance, or substance is or is not an obJect of transaction in e.change relations, >ill bear on the substitutability of >omen and >ealth in marriage e.changes )* Margaret =olly Dpersonal communicationE remarAs that the important thing about the identification of pigs and persons Din ?anuatuE is that pigs can )e nurtured The FGuasi,AinshipF D9iPuma *$%$:1&E relationship bet>een pigs and their female caretaAers is often remarAed in Melanesia )) @ne thinAs here of the category of Siane FpropertyF Ano>n as FpersonaltyF The term for Fo>nerF Damfon.aE is deri"ed from the >ord for shado>: LAs a shado> is attached to the person >ho casts it, so are obJects attached to their amfon.a+ and Just as the shado> is identified >ith the soul, so are obJects FidentifiedF >ith their amfon.aL DSalisbury *$6):6*E @bJects are so identified by the >orA that has gone into them; they include a range of items, including a >omanFs gro>ing crops >hom she guards against all comers ;ut see Se.tonFs comments on this D*$&1:*11E The e.clusi"eness of the tie Dthe FunityFE >ill "ary >ith timeon >hether the food is being internally Fgro>nF, >hether it is being prepared for another, or >hether it is to be gi"en a>ay Sch>immer D*$%1:))6E describes the moment in @roAai"a myth >here taro becomes differentiatedfrom being female at all stages of its de"elopment, it becomes male at the point >here it is a"ailable for prestation )0 @n the Ailling of pigs as a producti"e act, liAe planting a garden, see 9e8oy D*$%&E for the <e>a )1 Gimi fears of retention ha"e already been described Dsee chap (E The Ffalse pregnancyF fears of the neighboring 7ua refer to a condition that may afflict either se. DMeigs *$%6:()((; also 7ays and 7ays *$&):)66E 4t arises >hen menstrual blood collects in the >omb or stomach under circumstances >hen it can ha"e no outlet Din the manFs case, because there is no birth passageE page30%6 Page 0%% -or men the fear seems to be that instead of releasing partible substance, they >ill become the receptacle for it and absorb FfemaleF blood )( As gardeners, >omen culti"ate the FsAinF DfleshE of the ground, >hose FbonesF the husband o>ns D;iersacA *$&1:*0)E The FinsideF domain Dthe house,and,gardens area >hich is the center of domestic acti"ityE is the site of transactions bet>een husband and >ife Dsee abo"e p *0'E ;iersacA emphasi6es the relationship of noncommunication Dnone.changeE bet>een a >oman and her gardens: that producti"e acti"ity is conducted in solitude D*$&1:*)*E We may recall that gro>th in persons is thought to occur co"ertly, under the sAin De g , *$&):)1*E This gro>th is thus contained by the FsAinF >hich is the surface of menFs transactions >ith the >orld SAin, she >rites, LliAe >alls and fences, creates a center of e.clusi"ityL D*$&1:*0)E 4t encloses a dumb unity Da FpersonalF center she suggestsE to be contrasted >ith the organs of mind and speech that are a FsocialF center of communication The gro>th transactions to >hich ;iersacA refers are unmediated, though 4 noted that one of the obJects of the ritual is also to force a mediating mode on the boysF relationship >ith the spirit ;ut for the gro>th itself to occur, it has to be clandestine D*$&):)(*E Gro>th happens at night, secretly, and all Paiela gro>th magic is hidden, Flest people seeF D*$&):)1*E )6 @r the man on >hose land she li"es MenFs souls or life,substance may be specifically tied to clan territory Maring idioms refer to clansmen as FrootedF in soil D;uchbinder and 8appaport *$%6; 9iPuma *$%$E )% The follo>ing discussion of clanship o>es much to 8ena 9edermanFs >ritings on Mendi that she Aindly made a"ailable to me in unpublished form )& A nonagnate is referred to as a LtaAen and re,planted man,L LtaAen and made,to,be man,L LtaAen and placed manL DA Strathern *$%):*$E )$ 4 read Mac9eanFs article after formulating my o>n argument and refer to it for the purposes of comparison

0' The model of the 7agen clan as a body comprising both males and females is recreated in the course of cult performances in >hich a community of males enacts the internal di"ision into FmenFs and >omenFsF sides Dchap ( n *); also M Strathern *$&1a:))E @ne might compare ;iersacAFs description of Paiela DcognaticE Ain groups The consanguineal group that FcombinesF separate identities internal to itself, in e.ternal transactions beha"es as an e.ogamous, gift,gi"ing entity, >ith Lone mind, one body, one talA, one pig herdL D*$&0:&&E 4n this guise, the group may be referred to as FmaleF Singleness or unity of mind DintentionE is regarded by 7agen men and >omen as an achie"ed mental state, in opposition to the multiple desires that ine"itably inhabit persons and gi"e them Fmany mindsF Purposefulness DFsingle mindednessFE is not a unification or maAing >hole of these disparate, conflicting elements but sets them to one side in the interests of pursuing a particular course of action 0* See -osterFs apposite comments on +nga ceremonial e.change, >here a line creates a unity from >hat is simultaneously concei"ed by the actors as a multiplicity of sources: the creation of a straight line out of pigs from various sources reflects the influence of a man in the groups from >hich pigs ha"e been FpulledF Accordingly, the gloss page30%% Page 0%& of Fbig manF for .amungo seems happily appropriate, for the essence of the .amungo is his ability to incorporate the identities of otherstheir producti"e capacityinto his o>n D*$&(:*$), my emphasisE A Strathern D*$%*:*$'E comments on the 7agen description of a big man as one Lat the head of the mo.a >ho gathers and holds the talA,L >hich incorporates a phrase also used in cult performances to denote male unity @ne might liAen FstraightF DtrueE talA to a line of pigs on display DGoldman *$&0:))'; @F7anlon *$&0 E 0) Again a point 4 ha"e adapted from Werbner Dsee abo"e n *1E 00 ModJesAa argues that 5una, by contrast >ith 7agen, do not separate off a sphere of pig circulation Da domain of ceremonial e.changeE in >hich financed pigs become differentiated from domesticated pigs DModJesAa *$&):$(E Gregory D*$&):*66 et seG E himself touches on aspects of the difference in terms of a contrast bet>een the restricted and balanced e.change of items in some societies of Papua /e> Guinea, and incremental, delayed e.change in others Godelier D*$&)E contrasts great,men and big,men systems, the former >ith restricted DdirectE e.change of >omen, the latter depending on the mediations of >ealth to effect marriage and create Ainship 7o>e"er, ModJesAa does offer a significant di"ision bet>een types of circulation +"en though all transactions >ith "aluables are related to the ends of Ainship, he notes a Fbattle of the se.esF in the di"ergent interests of lineages and families D*$&):*'0 et seG E Men tend to promote the e.change of li"e pigs bet>een lineages Dhis circuit 4E, >here >omen desire sacrifice, >hich is the rationale for internal consumption Dcircuit 44E Sacrifice defines domestic sociality: it Lintegrates the men and >omen of the lineage in their internal relations of productionL D*$&):*'1E This is in effect a sphere of unmediated relations Thus the ancestorsF feeding on porA is Ano>n through the effects that follo>; there is no other sign or message of their ha"ing fed 4t is a gift,less transaction, as are relations bet>een the men and >omen, for they do not gi"e to one another but Join together in the eating of meat ModJesAa himself argues that 5una sacrifice corresponds to a communal mode of surplus appropriation LThose >ho ha"e mi.ed their labours in production partaAe mutually in consumption 4t contrasts >ith e.change, >hich is an inegalitarian modeL D*$&):*'(E 01 4 argued the point for the Wiru of the Southern 7ighlands DM Strathern *$&*b; *$&1bE Wiru sustain payments to maternal Ain throughout their li"es, or to their substitutes: differentiation is ne"er finali6ed 0( The Ainds of Ain,based transactions referred to here include bride>ealth, mortuary, and child payments, as >ell as e.changes accompanying initiation and other Ain celebrations An e.ample of a high degree of politici6ation is found in #himbu De g , P ;ro>n *$6*; *$61; *$%'E 06 @ne e.ample, Wiru of the Southern 7ighlands, is discussed in M Strathern *$&*b *': #ause And +ffect

* #ontrast his more subtle discursi"e obser"ations 7e >rites that it is Limpossible for a man himself independent of his relationshipsL page30%&

to support

Page 0%$ D*$%$:*(1E L4f a man has a curse laid on him by an angry maternal uncle and is dri"en out of the society, he feels Fin perditionF 7a"ing been obliged to flee, he no longer has any relationship through >hich to find himself again /ot e"en his speech manifests his being, because his being has no correspondence in society and ans>ers to no recogni6able personage 7e suffers from losing his role in >hich he felt himself to be specifically a personage 7e no longer e.ists socially -eeling he is nothing other than a social being, he suffers from not being He needs to )e a)le to )e summonedL D*$%$:*((, my emphasisE ) NSee fig ( o"er O Although :oung D*$&0:)66E is commenting on the conceptuali6ation of historical time as an alternating seGuence of plenty and famine on Goodenough, another Massim society, he reproduces in this conte.t =enness and ;allantyneFs depiction of inci6ed patterns Dfig (AE 4t e"oAed for :oung the timeless serpents >hose myths are shed along the sinuous paths of their tra"els, as they might ha"e shed >ealth if the myths had turned out other>ise D*$&0:chap 0E 5amon D*$&':)&'E depicts the >ay a Muyu> personFs name Dhis FhandFE tra"els along a .ula chain as an alternating process in >hich one manFs immediate partner Dveiyou,E is the route through >hich the name of his partnerFs partners D,mulE comes to him 4n relation to figure (;, 5amon e.plains that the "aluable # recei"es from 5 >ill be referred to as +Fs FhandF: L>hat this means is that the direct e.change bet>een any t>o partners is al>ays concei"ed as an e.change bet>een the people on either side of themL D*$&':)&'E 4n this case, 5 is the agent for that e.change ,Mul may in fact refer to any number of partners beyond the immediate one D5E 0 4 >ish 4 could ha"e taAen ad"antage of =adran MimicaFs monograph, ,ntimations of ,nfinity Din pressE, based on an analysis of the number system of the 4G>aye, >ho belong to the same language family as Sambia and ;aruya Mimica describes the DmathematicalE manner in >hich multiplicity is con"erted into unity and the mythology of sociality and personhood so entailed 1 4n 7agen, these alternati"es are gendered: >hat is true of any mind is also seen as split bet>een the characteristically Fmany mindsF of >omen and the Fone mindF of men ( Gi"en the >ay e"ents are subseGuently discussed and reinterpreted, and gi"en the e.pectation of multiple "ie>s D@F7anlon *$&0E, the unity of the audienceFs Judgements is also, of course, a fabrication 6 7ence my argument that the 7agen clan Fborro>sF a Ainship metaphor in its self,representation as e.ogamous Dsee chap $E This endo>s it >ith a prioriti6ation of sorts % 4n reference to Wahgi DWestern 7ighlandsE, @F7anlon and -ranAland Din pressE characteri6e a personFs relations >ith his2her motherFs brother not as a matter of their FsharingF blood but the one as a source of the otherFs Thus the motherFs brother Fgro>sF his sisterFs child DSee 5 ;ro>n *$&':0'6E 4 >ould also refer to the emphasis Ge>ert6 places on a similar concept Dfor the SepiA 8i"er #hambriE She stresses the asymmetry of Ain debts: persons are regarded as o>ing their li"es to their mothersF clans, for instance, >ho are thus their origin or cause DGe>ert6 *$&1E As she obser"es, for this culture causes are more important than effects Dpersonal communicationE My formulation of cause,effect relations o>es much to this insight from #hambri page30%$ Page 0&'

-ig ( T>o 4mages from the Massim & ?egetati"e idioms deser"e treatment by themsel"es 4 >ould Just mention the suggesti"e material in Gell D*$%(E Despecially on the symbolism of trees and gro>thE; and from a Guite different part of Melanesia, Goodale D*$&'E $ 7is concern is >ith the >ay A"atip cosmology does not reflect but appears to pro"ide a F>holly alternati"eF "ersion of the social order, >hich turns out to be a proJection of interests, not of moral rules ;loch D*$&'E tries to sho> a domain of ritual that not only does not affirm other Fsocial "aluesF beyond itself but carries messages that go against those of nonritual discourse *' Also Wagner D*$%(E, and see abo"e chapter %, n 1 These se"eral forms of deconstitution could be gathered under the rubric of ob"iation ** @ne may cite the concerns that in many areas surround female fertility De g , ?an ;aal *$&1E Theories of the accretion and depletion of "ital fluids D<elly *$%6E, or of the running do>n of the uni"erse DSWrum *$&1E, construct a particular an.iety about origins, and on the ritual creation of an.iety see Poole D*$&)E, Tu6in D*$&)E *) The argument is spelled out in M Strathern Din pressE, >hich compares 7agen mortuary metaphors for bride>ealth >ith the corresponding Wiru eGuation bet>een bride>ealth and childbirth payments *0 The seGuence is e.plicit in Gimi See, for instance, Gillison D*$&0:1%E 4n 7agen LThe brideFs Ain are said to FeatF the bride>ealth, >hile the hus)and FeatsF Di e , has se.ual intercourse >ithE the brideL DA Strathern *$&)b:*)&, my emphasisE The term for penetration on the husbandFs side is also the term for striAing, Ailling, or planting, that is, ha"ing an effect on another To be the page30&' Page 0&* recipient of an effect, such as a blo>, is to be FstrucAF by that effect, or FeatenF by it in the case of pain and misfortune *1 A con"erse of this can be seen in the poignant F>itchcraftF beliefs of people such as 7ageners De g , A Strathern *$&)bE >ho regard greed as ultimately consuming the person >hom it dro"e to being greedy What appears to the Western mind as a confusion of substance and identity can be understood as the regressi"e substitution of acts

*( @ne might underline Tu6inFs D*$&)E plea that >e attend to the Guestion of pain in ritual action >hich participants may also percei"e as cruel See 7ays and 7ays D*$&):)&), )&1E on the /dumba idea that pain strengthens the body **: 5omination * The first principle of -o.Fs four fundamental tenets of Ainship systems is presented as a Lfact of life,L "i6 LThe >omen ha"e the childrenL D*$6%:0*E See 9a -ontaineFs critiGue D*$&*:000001E ) The >ords are 8ubinFs D*$%(:*%)E, Guoting MaussFs &he Gift She adduces a comment by Sahlins in much the same "ein Din stateless societies the gift achie"es ci"il peaceE 0 As in +lshtainFs case Dsee belo>E, this may be inspired by MitchellFs initial incorporation of 9R"i,StraussFs thesis into her 'sychoanalysis and %eminism De g , Mc5onough and 7arrison *$%&:)')*E Mitchell faithfully reproduces his argument that the e.change of >omen is the e.change of signs, i e , "alues attached to particular relationships 7o>e"er, else>here D*$%*:*'6E she refers to the biological function of maternity as a uni"ersal, atemporal fact +isenstein D*$&1:chap )E comments on @rtnerFs use of 9R"i,Strauss 4 maAe these citations as a matter of interest in the >ay anthropological Ainship theory has been used outside the subJect @n the other hand, Sayers D*$&(:$$*''E linAs together MitchellFs and 8ubinFs approaches as 9acanian "ersions of psychoanalysis 1 4n &he Elementary !tructures of Kinship, he refers mainly to >omen as obJects of se.ual desire and as significant economic producers rather than in terms of their childbearing capacities ( See 9R"i,Strauss D*$6$:1)E on e"ery indi"idual ha"ing access Lto the >omen of the group L 7e also refers to Fthe groupF as controlling Fthe distributionF of >omen D*$6$:0)E 4 put it thus because although such a reading is clearly possible from the original, it does not do Justice to the o"erall account See, for e.ample, -riedmanFs comment on marriage e.change and ho> it is misunderstood D*$%1:1()E 4t is unfortunate that 9R"i,Strauss should ha"e found it necessary to account for the "alue of >omen through >hat in +nglish translates into a commodity idiom @r perhaps one should regard it as an ideological o"ersight There is no doubt that this has been recei"ed as one of the central messages of this booA by feminist and nonfeminist anthropologists aliAe 6 See also +lshtain D*$&1:6061E ;oth Mitchell D*$%(E and 9R"i,Strauss D*$6$E, she argues, are at fault here, the latter in a >ay that goes against his o>n e"idence page30&* Page 0&) % And generally 4 pull out SchneiderFs Guotation from Scheffler D*$%1:%1$E, that Lthe foundation of any Ainship system consists in the folA,cultural theory designed to account for the fact that #omen give )irth to childrenL DSchneiderFs emphasis; *$&1:*)%E Also ?an ;aal, LMotherhood is the basis of all AinshipL D*$%(:%$E & 4 ha"e since come across the follo>ing passage from Mitchell D*$%*: *'$E: reproduction in our society is often a Aind of sad mimicry of production WorA in a capitalist society is an alienation of labour in the maAing of a social product >hich is confiscated by capital ;ut it can still sometimes be a real act of creation Maternity is often a caricature of this The biological productthe childis treated as if it >ere a solid product Parenthood becomes a Aind of substitute for >orA, an acti"ity in >hich the child is seen as an obJect created by the mother, in the same >ay as a commodity is created by a >orAer NtOhe motherFs alienation can be much >orse than that of the >orAer The child as an autonomous person, ine"itably threatens the acti"ity >hich claims to create continually merely as a possession of the parent Possessions are felt as e.tensions of the self Doriginal emphasisE <riste"a refers to the DWesternE e.perience of pregnancy Las the radical ordeal of the splitting of the subJect: redoubling up of the body, separation and co,e.istence of the self and of an other,L and as conseGuently a Lfundamental challenge to identityL >hich is accompanied by a narcissistic fantasy of totality D*$&*:0*E The arri"al of the child, ho>e"er, leads the mother into a labyrinthine lo"e for another, >here the ability to succeed in guiltless maternity becomes a true FcreationF

4 >ould also refer to the e.position by @F;rien of 7egelFs formulation of reproduction Dthe unity of the conJugal couple produces a ne> entity that both is and is not themsel"esE, in >hich she points to his neglect of the role played by female labor She >rites: Lthe separations of >hich 7egel speaAs are differentiated by gender ManFs seed, once alienated, is permanently estranged Women part from a >hole child, but this alienation is mediated by labor ;y her labor, the >oman confirms t>o "ery important things @ne, ob"iously, is the Ano>ledge of this child as in a concrete sense her child, the product of her labor, a value that her labor has created The second is the e.perience of an integration >ith the actual continuity of her speciesL D*$&):*'6, original emphasisE $ #ompare MathieuFs D*$&1E insistence that maternity any>here in"ol"es the con"entional DFsocialFE allocation of mothers to children born into the community, i e , that childbirth is a social act *' 4t also leads to the a>A>ard tasA of ha"ing to identify the positions in pri"ilege, and thus the Fcentral institutionsF of society, in order to measure >omenFs e.clusion and disGualification from them De g , Schlegel *$%%:*&*$E See pp 6%6& ** #ompare /adel D*$(%:*'**E: LAll relationships, through the linAage or mutuality they signify, ser"e to FpositionF, ForderF, or FarrangeF the human material of societies L *) Where these appear to deny communication as in unpro"oAed acts of "iolence, or bet>een mother and speechless child, they may be held to e.hibit page30&) Page 0&0 FnaturalF beha"ior Dpathological in the case of the former, biological in the case of the latter, but in either case as less than FsocialF in characterES *0 @b"iously 4 agree >ith 7arrisonFs remarAs D*$&(a:*)%E that it >ould be Lmisleading to regard the religious and domestic perspecti"es as FmodelsF held respecti"ely by men and >omen Dcf Ardener *$%)E The ritual and familial ideologies are not properties of t>o social groups but of t>o organisational domainsL See also M Strathern D*$&*a:*6$, *&1E *1 @ne >ould e.pect, therefore, to find such appropriation to be specific to social conte.ts, as indeed #ollier and 8osaldo D*$&*E indicate in their discussion of mothers in societies >here >omen are celebrated neither as nurturers nor as the gi"ers of life *( 9angness D*$%%E stresses menFs interest in childbirth but from the perspecti"e of their FcontrolF of the relationship bet>een mother and child *6 Although he suggests that it is the inclination to care,gi"ing de"eloped from these functions >hich LmaAes >omen immensely "aluable to society in general, and to men in particularL D?an ;aal *$%(:*'%E *% Women are the "ital audience for menFs productions The remarAs apply particularly to the 7ighlands, and specifically to the +astern 7ighlands male cults of both a homose.ual and nonhomose.ual Aind DGimi menFs houses in >hich men initiate their sistersF sons are referred to in song as the FnestsF of birds; in gro>th spells, the nest of the echidna is glossed as the maternal >omb NGillison *$&':*16*&'O A >oman menstruates, by contrast, in a Fflute houseF N*$&':*(6O E +lse>here, as in the SepiA, cult houses themsel"es may ha"e e.plicitly feminine characteristics; the matrilineage plays this role prominently in the Massim *& ;iersacA D*$&1E argues that Paiela men are the organi6ers of procreation through their e.changes 4f men are also agents in such conte.ts, it is because of >omenFs prior actions at other times and the acts it is anticipated they >ill perform *$ Although 4 use the instance of childbirth, the same could be said of horticultural production 9iPuma D*$%$:1(E >rites of Maring that they Lare Guite e.plicit that the producti"e efficacy of >omen follo>s from the ritual efficacy of men Nin propitiating the ancestorsO L )' @n Paiela metaphors of big men and small >omen, see ;iersacA D*$&1E page30&0

Page 0&(

;4;94@G8AP7: page30&( Page 0&%

;ibliography $ote: The bibliographic limit of this >orA is *$&( Material a"ailable to me then but published since is noted in press+ >ith the reference follo>ing Adams, Par"een *$%$ FFA note on the distinction bet>een se.ual di"ision and se.ual differences L m7f 0 Allen, Michael 8 *$6% Male Cults and !ecret ,nitiations in Melanesia1 Melbourne: Melbourne !ni"ersity Press Allen, Michael 8 *$&*a Press anuatu1 'olitics+ Economics and Ritual in ,sland Melanesia1 Sydney: Academic

Allen, Michael 8 *$&*b L8ethinAing old problems: matriliny, secret societies and political e"olution L 4n M 8 Allen, ed anuatu1 'olitics+ Economics and Ritual in ,sland Melanesia1 Melbourne: Melbourne !ni"ersity Press Allen, Michael 8 *$&1 L+lders, chiefs, and ;ig Men: authority legitimation and political e"olution in Melanesia L "merican Ethnologist **:)',1* Ardener, +d>in *$%) L;elief and the problem of >omen L 4n = S 9a -ontaine, ed &he ,nterpretation of Ritual1 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications Ardener, Shirley, ed *$%( 4ntroduction to 'erceiving *omen1 /e> :orA: Wiley and Sons AtAinson, =ane Monnig *$&) LAnthropologyL N8e"ie> +ssayO !igns: -ournal of *omen in Culture and !ociety &:)06,)(& AugR, Marc *$&) &he "nthropological Circle1 !ym)ol %unction+ History1 Trans by M Thom #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press ;arnes, =ohn A *$6) LAfrican models in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands L Man n s 6):(,$ ;arnes, =ohn A *$%0 LGenetri.: genitor::nature: cultureML 4n = 8 Goody, ed , &he Character of Kinship1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press ;arnett, Ste"e and Martin G Sil"erman *$%$ ,deology and Everyday Life1 page30&% Page 0&& "nthropology+ $eomarxist &hought+ and the 'ro)lem of ,deology and the !ocial *hole1 Ann Arbor: !ni"ersity of Michigan Press ;arrett, MichUle *$&' *omen/s 3ppression &oday1 'ro)lems in Marxist %eminist "nalysis1 9ondon: ?erso ;arth, -redriA *$%( Ritual and Kno#ledge "mong the 0a.taman of $e# Guinea1 /e> 7a"en: :ale !ni"ersity Press ;ateson, Gregory *$(& N*$0&O $aven1 " !urvey of the 'ro)lems !uggested )y a Composite 'icture of a Culture of a $e# Guinea &ri)e (ra#n from &hree 'oints of ie#1 Stanford: Stanford !ni"ersity Press

;attaglia, 5ebbora *$&0a LProJecting personhood in Melanesia: the dialectics of artefact symbolism on Sabarl 4sland L Man n s *&:)&$,0'1 ;attaglia, 5ebbora *$&0b LSyndromes of ceremonial e.change in the eastern #al"ados: the "ie> from Sabarl 4sland L 4n = W 9each and + 8 9each, eds &he Kula1 $e# 'erspectives on Massim Exchange1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press ;attaglia, 5ebbora *$&( LFWe feed our fatherF: paternal nurture among the Sabarl of Papua /e> Guinea L "merican Ethnologist *):1)%,11* ;attel, 8oXsXn et al *$&0 LSo far, so good,,so >hatM WomenFs studies in the ! < L *omen/s !tudies ,nternational %orum 6:)(*,010 ;eer, Gillian *$&0 (ar#in/s 'lots1 Evolutionary $arrative in (ar#in+ George Eliot and $ineteenth Century %iction1 9ondon: 8outledge and <egan Paul ;ell, 5iane *$&0 (aughters of the (reaming1 Melbourne: McPhee Gribble2George Allen and !n>in ;erndt, 8onald M *$6) Excess and Restraint1 #hicago: !ni"ersity of #hicago Press ;iersacA, Aletta *$&) LGinger gardens for the ginger >oman: rites and passages in a Melanesian society,L Man n s *%:)0$,)(& ;iersacA, Aletta *$&0 L;ound blood: Paiela FconceptionF theory interpreted L Man.ind *1:&(,*'' ;iersacA, Aletta *$&1 LPaiela F>omen,menF: the refle.i"e foundations of gender ideology L "merican Ethnologist *':**&,*0& ;loch, Maurice *$%( LProperty and the end of affinity L 4n M ;loch, ed Marxist "nalyses in !ocial "nthropology1 9ondon: Malaby Press ;loch, Maurice *$%% LThe past and the present in the present L Man n s *):((,&* ;loch, Maurice *$&' L8itual symbolism and the nonrepresentation of society L 4n M 9e#ron -oster and S 7 ;randes, eds !ym)ol as !ense1 /e> :orA: Academic Press ;loch, Maurice *$&0 Marxism and "nthropology: &he History of a Relationship1 @.ford: #larendon Press ;loch, Maurice *$&( L-rom cognition to ideology L 4n 8 -ardon, ed 'o#er and Kno#ledge1 +dinburgh: Scottish Academic Press ;loch, Maurice 4n press L5escent and sources of contradiction in representations of >omen and Ainship L 4n = - #ollier and S = :anagisaAo, eds Gender and Kinship: Essays &o#ard a 6nified "nalysis1 Stanford: Stanford !ni"ersity Press N*$&%O ;loch, Maurice and =onathan Parry, eds *$&) 4ntroduction to (eath and the page30&& Page 0&$ Regeneration of Life1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press ;ohannan, Paul and 9aura ;ohannan *$6& &iv Economy1 9ondon: 9ongmans ;onte, Pierre *$&* LMar.ist theory and anthropological analysis: the study of nomadic pastoralist societies L 4n = S <ahn and = 8 9lobera, eds &he "nthropology of 're2Capitalist !ocieties1 9ondon: Macmillan ;oon, =ames A *$&) 3ther &ri)es+ 3ther !cri)es1 !ym)olic "nthropology in the Comparative !tudy of Cultures+ Histories+ Religions+ and &exts1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press ;ourdieu, Pierre *$%% 3utline of a &heory of 'ractice1 Trans by 8 /ice #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press

;o>les, Gloria and 8enate 5uelli <lein *$&0 &heories of *omen/s !tudies1 9ondon: 8outledge and <egan Paul ;o>den, 8oss *$&1 LArt and gender ideology in the SepiA L Man n s 11(,1(& ;rindley, Marianne *$&1 &he !ym)olic Role of *omen in &ro)riand Gardening1 Pretoria: !ni"ersity of South Africa ;ro>n, 5a"id = = *$&' LThe Structuring of Polopa <inship and Affinity L 3ceania (':)$%,00* ;ro>n, Paula *$6* L#himbu 5eath Payments L -ournal of the Royal "nthropological ,nstitute $*:%%,$6 ;ro>n, Paula *$6) L/on,agnates among the patrilineal #himbu L -ournal of the 'olynesian !ociety %*:(%,6$ ;ro>n, Paula *$61 L+nemies and Affines L Ethnology 0:00(,0(6 ;ro>n, Paula *$%' L#himbu transactions L Man n s (:$$,**% ;ro>n, Paula *$%& Highland 'eople of $e# Guinea1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press ;ro>n, Paula and Georgeda ;uchbinder, eds *$%6 Man and *oman in the $e# Guinea Highlands1 American Anthropological Association, spec pub & ;uchbinder, Georgeda and 8oy A 8appaport *$%6 L-ertility and death among the Maring L 4n P ;ro>n and G ;uchbinder, eds Man and *oman in the $e# Guinea Highlands1 American Anthropological Association, spec pub & ;uJra, =anet M *$%& L4ntroductory: female solidarity and the se.ual di"ision of labour L 4n P #aplan and = M ;uJra, eds *omen 6nited+ *omen (ivided: Cross2Cultural 'erspectives on %emale !olidarity1 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications #aplan, Patricia and =anet M ;uJra, eds *$%& *omen 6nited+ *omen (ivided: Cross2Cultural 'erspectives on %emale !olidarity1 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications #arrier, =ames n d L#ultural content and practical meaning: the construction of symbols in formal American culture L MSS #aulfield, Mina 5a"is *$&* L+Guality, se., and mode of production L 4n G 5 ;erreman and < M HaretsAy, eds !ocial ,ne4uality1 /e> :orA: Academic Press page30&$ Page 0$' #hodoro>, /ancy *$%& &he Reproduction of Mothering1 'sychoanalysis and the !ociology of Gender1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press #ho>ning, Ann *$%% N*$%0O "n ,ntroduction to the 'eoples and Cultures of Melanesia1 Menlo ParA: #ummings Pub #o #lay, ;renda = *$%% 'ini.indu: Maternal $urture+ 'aternal !u)stance1 #hicago: !ni"ersity of #hicago Press #lifford, =ames *$&) 'erson and Myth: Maurice Leenhardt in the Melanesian *orld1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press #ollier, =ane - and Michelle H 8osaldo *$&* LPolitics and gender in simple societies L 4n S ; @rtner and 7 Whitehead, eds !exual Meanings1 /e> :orA: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press #ooA, +d>in A and 5enise @F;rien, eds *$&' 0lood and !emen: Kinship !ystems of Highland $e# Guinea1 Ann Arbor: !ni"ersity of Michigan Press #ounts, 5a"id and 5orothy #ounts *$%1 LThe <aliai 9upunga: disputing in the public forum L 4n A 9 +pstein, ed Contention and (ispute1 #anberra: Australian /ational !ni"ersity Press

5amon, -redericA 7 *$&' LThe <ula and generalised e.change: considering some unconsidered aspects of &he elementary structures of .inship1: Man n s *(:)6%,)$) 5amon, -redericA 7 *$&0a LMuyu> Ainship and the metamorphosis of gender labour L Man n s *&:0'(,0)6 5amon, -redericA 7 *$&0b LWhat mo"es the Aula: opening and closing gifts on WoodlarA 4sland L 4n = W 9each and + 8 9each, eds &he Kula1 $e# 'erspectives on Massim Exchange1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press de 9eper"anche, Marie *$6%,*$6& L5escent, residence and leadership in the /e> Guinea highlands L 3ceania 0%:*01,*(&; 0&:*61,*&$ 5undes, Alan *$%6 LA psychoanalytic study of the bullroarer L Man n s **:))',)0& +isenstein, 7ester *$&1 Contemporary %eminist &hought1 Sydney: !n>in PaperbacAs +lshtain, =ean ;ethAe *$&* 'u)lic Man+ 'rivate *oman1 *omen in !ocial and 'olitical &hought1 Princeton: Princeton !ni"ersity Press +lshtain, =ean ;ethAe *$&) L-eminist discourse and its discontents: language, po>er, and meaning L 4n / @ <eohane, M H 8osaldo and ; # Gelpi, eds %eminist &heory1 " Criti4ue of ,deology1 Susse.: The 7ar"ester Press +lshtain, =ean ;ethAe *$&1 LSymmetry and soporifics: a critiGue of feminist accounts of gender de"elopment L 4n ; 8ichards, ed Capitalism and ,nfancy1 9ondon: -ree Association ;ooAs +ndicott, <aren 9ampell *$&* LThe conditions of egalitarian male,female relationships in foraging societies L Can)erra "nthropology 1:*,*' +nne>, =udith *$&* LWrapping up reality: the ethnographic pacAageL N8e"ie> ArticleO Cam)ridge "nthropology 6:1&,6' +pstein, Arnold 9 *$%$ LTambu: the shell money of the Tolai L 4n 8 7 7ooA, ed %antasy and !ym)ol1 9ondon: Academic Press +rnst, Thomas M *$%& LAspects of meaning of e.changes and e.change items among the @nabasalu of the Great Papuan Plateau L Man.ind **:*&%,*$% page30$' Page 0$* +tienne, Mona and +leanor 9eacocA, eds *$&* 4ntroduction to *omen and Colonization1 "nthropological 'erspectives1 /e> :orA: Praeger +"ans,Pritchard, + + *$1' &he $uer1 " (escription of the Modes of Livelihood and 'olitical ,nstitutions of a $ilotic 'eople1 @.ford: #larendon Press -aithorn, +li6abeth *$%( LThe concept of pollution among the <afe of the Papua /e> Guinea 7ighlands L 4n 8 8eiter, ed &o#ard an "nthropology of *omen1 /e> :orA: Monthly 8e"ie> Press -aithorn, +li6abeth *$%6 LWomen as persons Aspects of female life and male,female relations among the <afe L 4n P ;ro>n and G ;uchbinder, eds Man and *oman in the $e# Guinea Highlands1 American Anthropological Association, spec pub & -ardon, 8ichard *$&( LSociability and secrecy: t>o problems of #hamba Ano>ledge L 4n 8 -ardon, ed 'o#er and Kno#ledge: "nthropological and !ociological "pproaches1 +dinburgh: Scottish Academic Press -eil, 5aryl < *$%& LWomen and men in the +nga tee L "merican Ethnologist (:)60,)%$ -eil, 5aryl < *$&)a L-rom pigs to pearlshells: the transformation of a /e> Guinea highlands e.change economy L "merican Ethnologist $:)$*,0'6

-eil, 5aryl < *$&)b LAlienating the inalienableL NcorrespondenceO Man n s *%: 01',010 -eil, 5aryl < *$&1a L;eyond patriliny in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands L Man n s *$:(',%6 -eil, 5aryl < *$&1b *ays of Exchange1 &he Enga /tee/ of 'apua $e# Guinea1 St 9ucia: !ni"ersity of Queensland Press -inney, ;en 8 *$%0 0ig2men and 0usiness: Entrepreneurship and Economic Gro#th in the $e# Guinea Highlands1 #anberra: Australian /ational !ni"ersity Press -orge, Anthony *$66 LArt and en"ironment in the SepiA L 'roc1 Royal "nthropological ,nstitute1 *$6( )0,0* -orge, Anthony *$%) LThe golden fleece L Man n s %:()%,(1' -orge, Anthony *$%0 LStyle and meaning in SepiA art L 4n A -orge, ed 'rimitive "rt and !ociety1 9ondon: @.ford !ni"ersity Press -ortes, Meyer *$6$ Kinship and the !ocial 3rder1 #hicago: Aldine Pub #o -oster, 8obert = *$&( LProduction and "alue in the +nga &ee1: 3ceania1 ((:*&),*$6 -o., 8obin *$6% Kinship and Marriage1 "n "nthropological 'erspective1 7armonds>orth: Penguin ;ooAs -ranAenberg, 8onald *$%& L+conomic Anthropology or Political +conomy D4E: the ;arotse social formation,,a case study L 4n = #lammer, ed &he $e# Economic "nthropology1 9ondon: Macmillan -riedl, +rnestine *$%( *omen and Men: "n "nthropologist/s ie#1 /e> :orA: 7olt, 8inehart and Winston -riedman, =onathan *$%1 LMar.ism, structuralism and "ulgar materialism L Man n s $:111,16$ Gardener, 5on S *$&0 LPerformati"ity in ritual: the Mianmin case L Man n s *&:016,06' Gardener, 5on and /icholas ModJesAa eds *$&( Recent studies in the political page30$* Page 0$) economy of 'apua $e# Guinea societies1 Man.ind special issue 1 Gatens, Moira *$&0 LA critiGue of the se.2gender distinction L 0eyond Marxism+ ,ntervention1 special issue, *10,*6' Gell, Alfred *$%( Metamorphosis of the Casso#aries: 6meda !ociety+ Language and Ritual1 9ondon: The Athlone Press Gellner, +rnest *$&) L/ationalism and the t>o forms of cohesion in comple. societies L 'roceedings of the 0ritish "cademy1 ?ol l."iii, *6(,*&% Ge>ert6, 5eborah ; *$&0 !epi. River !ocieties1 " Historical Ethnography of the Cham)ri and their $eigh)ors1 /e> 7a"en: :ale !ni"ersity Press Ge>ert6, 5eborah and +d>ard Schieffelin, eds *$&( History and Ethnohistory in 'apua $e# Guinea1 3ceania Monograph )&, Sydney Gillison, Gillian S *$&' L4mages of nature in Gimi thought L 4n # Mac#ormacA and M Strathern, eds $ature+ Culture and Gender1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Gillison, Gillian S *$&0 L#annibalism among >omen in the +astern 7ighlands of Papua /e> Guinea L 4n P ;ro>n and 5 Tu6in, eds &he Ethnography of Canni)alism1 Washington: Soc Psychological Anthropology Gillison, Gillian S 4n press L4ncest and the atom of Ainship: The role of the motherFs brother in a /e> Guinea 7ighlands society L N*$&%: Ethos *(:*66,)') O

Godelier, Maurice *$%( LModes of production, Ainship, and demographic structures L 4n M ;loch, ed Marxist "nalyses and !ocial "nthropology1 9ondon: Malaby Press Godelier, Maurice *$%% N*$%0O 'erspectives in Marxist "nthropology1 Trans by 8 ;rain #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Godelier, Maurice *$&) LSocial hierarchies among the ;aruya of /e> Guinea L 4n A = Strathern, ed ,ne4uality in $e# Guinea Highland !ocieties1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Godelier, Maurice and P ;onte *$%6 L9e problUme des formes et des fondements de la domination masculine L Les Cahiers du Centre d/8tudes et de recherches marxistes *)& Goldman, 9aurence *$&0 &al. $ever (ies1 &he Language of Huli (isputes1 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications Goodale, =ane # *$&' LGender, se.uality and marriage: a <aulong model of nature and culture L 4n # P Mac#ormacA and M Strathern, eds $ature+ Culture and Gender1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Goodenough, Ward 7 *$%' (escription and Comparison in Cultural "nthropology1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Goody, =acA *$%% &he (omestication of the !avage Mind1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Gourlay, <enneth A *$%( LSound,producing instruments in traditional society: a study of esoteric instruments and their role in male,female relations L $e# Guinea Res1 0ull1 6', #anberra and Port Moresby: Australian /ational !ni"ersity Gregory, #hristopher A *$&' LGifts to men and gifts to god: gift e.change and capital accumulation in contemporary Papua L Man n s *(:6)6,6() Gregory, #hristopher A *$&) Gifts and Commodities1 9ondon: Academic Press Gudeman, Stephen and Mischa Penn *$&) LModels, meanings and refle.i", page30$) Page 0$0 ity L 4n 5 ParAin, ed !emantic "nthropology1 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications 7ara>ay, 5onna *$&( LA manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology, and socialist feminism in the *$&'s L !ocialist Revie# &':6(,*'% 7arris, @li"ia *$&* L7ouseholds as natural units L 4n <ate :oung, #arol WolAo>it6, and 8oslyn Mc#ullagh, eds 3f Marriage and the Mar.et1 9ondon: # S + ;ooAs 7arris, @li"ia and <ate :oung *$&* L+ngendered structures: some problems in the analysis of reproduction L 4n = S <ahn and = 8 9lobera, eds &he "nthropology of 're2Capitalist !ocieties1 9ondon: Macmillan 7arrison, Simon *$&1 L/e> Guinea highland social structure in a lo>land totemic mythology L Man n s *$:0&$,1'0 7arrison, Simon *$&(a L#oncepts of the person in A"atip religious thought L Man n s )':**(,*0' 7arrison, Simon *$&(b L8itual hierarchy and secular eGuality in a SepiA 8i"er "illage L "merican Ethnologist *):1*0,1)6 7a>Ains, Mary *$&1 LGender symbolism and po>er relations: a reassessment of the Amb <or cult of Mt 7agen L Man.ind1 *1:)*%,))1 7ays, Terence + and Patrica 7 7ays *$&) L@pposition and complementarity of the se.es in /dumba initiation L 4n G 7 7erdt, ed Rituals of Manhood1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press

7erdt, Gilbert 7 *$&* Guardians of the %lutes: ,dioms of Masculinity1 /e> :orA: McGra> 7ill ;ooA #o 7erdt, Gilbert 7 *$&)a L-etish and fantasy in Sambia initiation L 4n G 7erdt, ed Rituals of Manhood1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press 7erdt, Gilbert 7 *$&)b LSambia nosebleeding rites and male pro.imity to >omen L Ethos *':*&$,)0* 7erdt, Gilbert 7 *$&)c Preface to Rituals of Manhood: Male ,nitiation in 'apua $e# Guinea1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press 7erdt, Gilbert 7 *$&1a Preface to Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press 7erdt, Gilbert 7 *$&1b LSemen transactions in Sambia culture L 4n G 7erdt, ed Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press 7erdt, Gilbert 7 and -it6 =ohn P Poole *$&) LFSe.ual antagonismF: the intellectual history of a concept in /e> Guinea anthropology L 4n - = P Poole and G 7 7erdt, eds !exual "ntagonism+ Gender and !ocial Change in 'apua $e# Guinea1 !ocial "nalysis1 special issue *) 7irschon, 8enRe, ed *$&1 *omen and 'roperty+ *omen as 'roperty1 9ondon: #room 7elm 7irst, Paul and Penny Woolley *$&) !ocial Relations and Human "ttri)utes1 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications 7utt, #orinne *$%) Males and %emales1 7armonds>orth: Penguin ;ooAs 7yndman, 5a"id *$&) L;iotype gradient in a di"ersified /e> Guinea subsistence system L Human Ecology *':)*$,)($ 4llich, 4"an *$&) Gender1 /e> :orA: Pantheon ;ooAs page30$0 Page 0$1 =ameson, -redericA *$&( LPostmodernism and consumer society L 4n 7 -oster, ed 'ostmodern Culture1 9ondon and Sydney: Pluto Press =enness, 5 and A ;allantyne *$)' &he $orthern (/Entrecasteaux1 @.ford: #larendon Press =olly, Margaret *$&* LPeople and their products in South Pentecost L 4n M 8 Allen, ed Economics and Ritual in ,sland Melanesia1 Sydney: Academic Press anuatu1 'olitics+

=olly, Margaret *$&) L;irds and ;anyans of South Pentecost: <astom in anti,colonial struggle in South Pentecost, ?anuatu L 4n 8 <eesing and 8 TonAinson, eds Reinventing &raditional Culture: &he 'olitics of Kastom in ,sland Melanesia1 Man.ind1 special issue *0:00&,0(% =olly, Margaret *$&1 LThe anatomy of pig lo"e: substance, spirit and gender in South Pentecost, ?anuatu L Can)erra "nthropology %:%&,*'& =olly, Margaret 4n press L-rom corporeality to commodity: food and gender in South Pentecost, ?anuatu L 4n 9 Manderson, ed Gender+ !u)stance and !u)sistence: %ood and !ocial Relations in the 'acific1 -ournal de la !oci8t8 des 3c8anistes1 special issue =orgensen, 5aniel, ed *$&0 L#oncepts of conception: procreation ideologies in Papua /e> Guinea L Man.ind1 special issue *1 =osephides, 9isette *$&) !uppressed and 3vert "ntagonism: " !tudy in "spects of 'o#er and Reciprocity among the $orthern Melpa1 8esearch in Melanesia, @ccasional Paper ) Port Moresby: !ni"ersity of Papua /e> Guinea =osephides, 9isette *$&0 L+Gual but differentM The ontology of gender among the <e>a L 3ceania1 (0:)$*,0'%

=osephides, 9isette *$&(a &he 'roduction of ,ne4uality1 Gender and Exchange among the Ke#a1 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications =osephides, 9isette *$&(b L;ulldo6ers and Aings; or talA, name, group and land: a <e>a political palindrome L 4n *omen in 'olitics in 'apua $e# Guinea1 Australian /ational !ni"ersity >orAing paper 6 #anberra: 5epartment of Political and Social #hange <ahn, =oel S and =osep 8 9lobera *$&* &he "nthropology of 're2Capitalist !ocieties1 9ondon: Macmillan <eesing, 8oger M *$&) 4ntroduction to G 7 7erdt, ed Rituals of Manhood+ ,nitiation in 'apua $e# Guinea1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press <elly, 8aymond # *$%6 LWitchcraft and se.ual relations: an e.ploration in the social and semantic implications of the structure of belief L 4n P ;ro>n and G ;uchbinder, eds Man and *oman in the $e# Guinea Highlands1 American Anthropological Association, spec pub & <elly, 8aymond # *$%% Etoro !ocial !tructure: " !tudy in !tructural Contradiction1 Ann Arbor: !ni"ersity of Michigan Press <eohane, /annerl @ and ;arbara # Gelpi *$&) -ore>ord to / @ <eohane, M H 8osaldo and ; # Gelpi, eds %eminist &heory: " Criti4ue of ,deology1 Susse.: The 7ar"ester Press <o"el, =oel *$&1 L8ationali6ation and the family L 4n ; 8ichards, ed Capitalism and ,nfancy1 9ondon: -ree Association ;ooAs page30$1 Page 0$( <riste"a, =ulia *$&* LWomenFs time L Trans by A =ardine and 7 ;laAe !igns: -ournal of *omen in Culture and !ociety %:*0,0( <uhn, Annette *$%& LStructures of patriarchy and capital in the family L 4n A <uhn and A M Wolpe, eds %eminism and Materialism: *omen and Modes of 'roduction1 9ondon: 8outledge and <egan Paul <uhn, Annette and Anne Marie Wolpe *$%& L-eminism and materialism L 4n A <uhn and A M Wolpe, eds %eminism and Materialism: *omen and Modes of 'roduction1 9ondon: 8outledge and <egan Paul 9a -ontaine, =ean S *$%& 4ntroduction to !ex and "ge as 'rinciples of !ocial (ifferentiation1 A S A *% 9ondon: Academic Press 9a -ontaine, =ean S *$&* LThe domestication of the sa"age male L Man n s *6:000,01$ 9angness, 9e>is 9 *$61 LSome problems in the conceptuali6ation of 7ighlands and social structures L 4n = ; Watson, ed $e# Guinea: &he Central Highlands1 "merican "nthropologist 66, spec pub 9angness, 9e>is 9 *$6% LSe.ual antagonism in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands: a ;ena ;ena e.ample L 3ceania 0%:*6*,*%% 9angness, 9e>is 9 *$%% N*$%1O L8itual, po>er, and male dominance in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands L 4n 8 -ogelson and 8 / Adams, eds &he "nthropology of 'o#er1 /e> :orA: Academic Press 9angness, 9e>is 9 *$&) L5iscussion L 4n - = P Poole and G 7 7erdt, eds !exual "ntagonism+ Gender+ and !ocial Change in 'apua $e# Guinea1 !ocial "nalysis1 special issue *) 9angness, 9e>is 9 and =ohn Weschler *$%* Melanesia1 Readings on a Cultural "rea1 Scranton: #handler Publishing #ompany 9each, +dmund 8 *$(% LThe epistemological bacAground to Malino>sAiFs empiricism L 4n 8 -irth, ed Man and Culture1 9ondon: 8outledge and <egan Paul 9each, +dmund 8 and =erry W 9each, eds *$&0 &he Kula1 $e# 'erspectives on Massim Exchange1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press

9eacocA, +leanor ;urAe *$%& LWomenFs status in egalitarian society: implications for social e"olution L Current "nthropology *$:)1%,)%( 9eacocA, +leanor ;urAe *$&* Myths of Male (ominance1 /e> :orA: Monthly 8e"ie> Press 9eacocA, +leanor ;urAe *$&) L8elations of production in band society L 4n + ; 9eacocA and 8 9ee, eds 'olitics and History in 0and !ocieties1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press 9eahy, Michael and Maurice #rain *$0% &he Land &hat &ime %orgot: "dventures and (iscoveries in $e# Guinea1 /e> :orA: -unA and Wagnalls #ompany 9ederman, 8ena *$&' LWho speaAs hereM -ormality and the politics of gender in Mendi L -ournal of the 'olynesian !ociety &$:1%$,1$& 9ederman, 8ena *$&' 4n press L#ontested order: gender constructions and social structures in Mendi L 4n P Sanday, ed 0eyond the !econd !ex1 9eenhardt, Maurice *$%$ N*$1%O (o Kamo1 'erson and Myth in the Melanesian *orld1 Trans by ; M Gulati #hicago: !ni"ersity of #hicago Press 9e8oy, =ohn *$%& L;urning our trees: metaphors in <e>a songs L 4n + Sch>immer, ed &he ;ear)oo. of !ym)olic "nthropology <1 McGill,QueenFs !ni"ersity Press27urst page30$( Page 0$6 9e8oy, =ohn *$%$ LThe ceremonial pig Aill of the South <e>a L 3ceania 1$:*%$,)'$ 9essing, 5oris *$&* &he !irian Experiments1 9ondon: =onathan #ape 9R"i,Strauss, #laude *$6$ N*$1$O &he Elementary !tructures of Kinship1 Trans by = 7 ;ell, = 8 "on Sturmer, and 8 /eedham 9ondon: +yre and Spottis>oode 9e>is, Gilbert *$&' (ay of !hining Red1 "n Essay on 6nderstanding Ritual1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press 9indenbaum, Shirley *$%6 LA >ife is the hand of man L 4n P ;ro>n and G ;uchbinder, eds Man and *oman in the $e# Guinea Highlands1 American Anthropological Association, spec pub & 9indenbaum, Shirley *$&1 L?ariations on a sociose.ual theme in Melanesia L 4n G 7 7erdt, ed Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press 9iPuma, +d>ard *$%$ LSe.ual asymmetry and social reproduction among the Maring of Papua /e> Guinea L Ethnos 11:01,(% 9loyd, Gene"ie"e *$&0 L8eason, gender, and morality in the history of philosophy L !ocial Research (':1$',(*0 9loyd, Gene"ie"e *$&1 &he Man of Reason1 /Male/ and /%emale/ in *estern 'hilosophy1 9ondon: Methuen and #ompany 9Vfgren, @r"ar 4n press L5econstructing S>edishness: culture and class in modern S>eden L N4n A =acAson ed , "nthropology at Home1 ASA )( 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications, *$&6O Macintyre, Martha *$&1 LThe problem of the semi,alienable pig L Can)erra "nthropology %:*'$,*)0 Mac<innon, #atharine A *$&) L-eminism, Mar.ism, method, and the state: an agenda for theory L 4n / @ <eohane, M H 8osaldo and ; # Gelpi, eds %eminist &heory1 " Criti4ue of ,deology1 Susse.: The 7ar"ester Press Mac9ean, /eil *$&( L!nderstanding Maring marriage: a Guestion of the analytic utility of the 5omestic Mode of Production L 4n 5 Gardner and / ModJesAa, eds Recent !tudies in the 'olitical Economy of 'apua $e# Guinea !ocieties1 Man.ind *(, spec issue 1

Malino>sAi, ;ronisla> *$)$ &he !exual Life of !avages in $orth2*estern Melanesia1 9ondon: Geo 8outledge and Sons Malino>sAi, ;ronisla> *$0( Coral Gardens and &heir Magic1 " !tudy of the Methods of &illing the !oil and of "gricultural Rites in the &ro)riand ,slands1 ?ol 4 /e> :orA: American ;ooA #o MarAs, +laine and 4sabelle de #ourtri"on *$&( N*$&'O $e# %rench %eminisms1 ;righton: The 7ar"ester Press 9td Marriott, Mc<im *$%6 L7indu transactions: di"ersity >ithout dualism L 4n ; <apferer, ed &ransaction and Meaning1 Philadelphia: 4S74 Publications DASA +ssays in Anthropology *E Marshall, Mac *$&0 4ntroduction to M Marshall, ed !i)lingship in 3ceania1 !tudies in the Meaning of Kin Relations1 ASA@ Monograph & 9anham: !ni"ersity Press of America Martin, M <ay and ;arbara ?oorhies *$%( %emale of the !pecies1 /e> :orA: #olumbia !ni"ersity Press page30$6 Page 0$% Mc5onough, 8oisin and 8achel 7arrison *$%& FFPatriarchy and relations of production L 4n A <uhn and A M Wolpe, eds %eminism and Materialism1 9ondon: 8outledge and <egan Paul Mathieu, /icole,#laude *$&1 N*$%%O L;iological paternity, social maternity L Trans by 5 9eonard %eminist ,ssues 1:60,%* Matthe>s, =ill =ulius *$&1 Good and Mad *omen1 &he Historical Construction of %eminity in &#entieth Century "ustralia1 Sydney: George Allen and !n>in Mauss, Marcel *$(1 N*$)(O &he Gift: %orms and %unctions of Exchange in "rchaic !ocieties1 Trans by 4 #unnison 9ondon: #ohen and West Mead, Margaret *$0( !ex and &emperament in &hree 'rimitive !ocieties1 9ondon: Geo 8outledge and Sons Mead, Margaret *$(' Male and %emale1 " !tudy of the !exes in a Changing *orld1 9ondon: ?ictor Gollanc6 9td Meggitt, Mer"yn = *$61 LMale,female relationships in the highlands of Australian /e> Guinea L 4n $e# Guinea: &he Central Highlands1 "merican "nthropologist 66, spec pub Meggitt, Mer"yn = *$6( &he Lineage !ystem of the Mae2Enga of $e# Guinea1 +dinburgh: @li"er and ;oyd Meigs, Anna S *$%6 LMale pregnancy and the reduction of se.ual opposition in a /e> Guinea 7ighlands society L Ethnology *(:0$0,1'% Meigs, Anna S *$&1 %ood+ !ex and 'ollution1 " $e# Guinea Religion1 /e> ;runs>icA: 8utgers !ni"ersity Press Milton, <ay *$%$ LMale bias in anthropologyML Man n s *1:1',(1 Mitchell, =uliet *$%* *oman/s Estate1 7armonds>orth: Penguin ;ooAs Mitchell, =uliet *$%( 'sychoanalysis and %eminism1 7armonds>orth: Penguin ;ooAs ModJesAa, /icholas *$&) LProduction and ineGuality: perspecti"es from central /e> Guinea L 4n A = Strathern, ed ,ne4uality in $e# Guinea Highlands !ocieties1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Munn, /ancy 5 *$%% LThe spatiotemporal transformations of Ga>a canoes L -ournal de la !oci8t8 des 3c8anistes 00:0$,(1 Munn, /ancy 5 *$&0 LGa>an Aula: spatiotemporal control and the symbolism of influence L 4n = W 9each and + 8 9each, eds &he Kula1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press

/adel, Sigmund - *$(% &he &heory of !ocial !tructure1 9ondon: #ohen and West /ash, =ill *$%1 LMatriliny and modernisation: the /ago"isi of South ;ougain"ille L $e# Guinea Res1 0ull1 (( Port Moresby and #anberra: The Australian /ational !ni"ersity /eedham, 8odney *$%* L8emarAs on the analysis of Ainship and marriage L 4n 8 /eedham, ed Rethin.ing Kinship and Marriage1 ASA ** 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications /e>man, Philip 9 *$6( Kno#ing the Gururum)a1 /e> :orA: 7olt, 8inehart and Winston /e>man, Philip 9 and 5a"id = ;oyd *$&) LThe maAing of men: ritual and meaning in A>a male initiation L 4n G 7 7erdt ed Rituals of Manhood1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press page30$% Page 0$& @aAley, Ann *$%) !ex+ Gender and !ociety1 9ondon: Temple Smith @F;rien, Mary *$&) L-eminist theory and dialectical logic L 4n / @ <eohane, M H 8osaldo, and ; # Gelpi, eds %eminist &heory1 Susse.: The 7ar"ester Press @F;rien, 5enise and Sharon W Tiffany *$&1 Rethin.ing *omen/s Roles: 'erspectives from the 'acific1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press @F7anlon, Michael *$&0 L7andsome is as handsome does: display and betrayal in the Wahgi L 3ceania (0:0*%,000 @F7anlon, Michael and 9inda -ranAland 4n press LWith a sAull in the netbag: prescripti"e marriage and marilateral relations in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands L N*$&6: 3ceania (6:*&*,*$& O @F9aughlin, ;ridget *$%1 LMediation of contradiction: >hy Mbum >omen do not eat chicAen L 4n M H 8osaldo and 9 9amphere, eds *omen+ Culture and !ociety1 Stanford: Stanford !ni"ersity Press @llman, ;ertell *$%6 N*$%*O "lienation1 Marx/s Conception of Man in Capitalist !ociety1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press @rti6, Sutti *$%$ LThe estimation of >orA: labour and "alue among Pae6 farmers L 4n S Wallman, ed !ocial "nthropology of *or.1 ASA *$ 9ondon: Academic Press @rtner, Sherry ; *$%1 L4s female to male as nature is to cultureML 4n M H 8osaldo and 9 9amphere, eds *oman+ Culture and !ociety1 Stanford: Stanford !ni"ersity Press @rtner, Sherry ; and 7arriet Whitehead *$&* L4ntroduction: accounting for se.ual meanings L 4n S ; @rtner and 7 Whitehead, eds !exual Meanings1 &he Cultural Construction of Gender and !exuality1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press @>ens, #raig *$&( LThe discourse of others: feminists and postmodernism L 4n 7 -oster, ed 'ostmodern Culture1 9ondon and Sydney: Pluto Press PaJac6Ao>sAa, #laire *$&* L4ntroduction to <riste"a L m7f (26:*1%,*(% Pla6a, MoniGue *$%& LFPhallomorphic po>erF and the psychology of F>omanF: a patriarchal chain L ,deology and Consciousness1 1:(,06 Poole, -it6 =ohn P *$&* LTransforming FnaturalF >oman: female ritual leaders and gender ideology among ;imin,<usAusmin L 4n S @rtner and 7 Whitehead, eds !exual Meanings1 /e> :orA: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Poole, -it6 =ohn P *$&) LThe ritual forging of identity: aspects of person and self in ;imin,<usAusmin male initiation L 4n G 7 7erdt, ed Rituals of Manhood1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press

Poole, -it6 =ohn P *$&1 LSymbols of substance: ;imin,<usAusmin models of procreation, death, and personhood L Man.ind *1:*$*,)*6 Poole, -it6 =ohn P and Gilbert 7 7erdt eds *$&) !exual "ntagonism+ Gender+ and !ocial Change in 'apua $e# Guinea1 !ocial "nalysis1 special issue *) Quinn, /aomi *$%% LAnthropological studies on >omenFs status L 4n "nnual Revie# of "nthropology1 Palo Alto: Annual 8e"ie>s 4nc page30$& Page 0$$ 8adcliffe,;ro>n, A 8 *$0',*$0* LThe social organi6ation of Australian tribes L 3ceania 4:01,60; )'6,)16; 0)),01*; 1)6,1(6 8adcliffe,;ro>n, A 8 *$1' L@n social structure L -ournal R1"1,1 %':*,*) 8app, 8ayna *$%$ LAnthropologyL N8e"ie> +ssayO !igns: -ournal of *omen in Culture and !ociety 1:1$%,(*0 8ead, <enneth *$(1 L#ultures of the #entral 7ighlands, /e> Guinea L !outh#estern -ournal of "nthropology *':*,10 8ead, <enneth *$%* N*$()O L/ama cult of the #entral 7ighlands, /e> Guinea L 4n 9 9 9angness and = # Weschler, eds Melanesia1 Readings on a Cultural "rea1 Scranton: #handler Publishing #o 8ead, <enneth *$&) LMale,female relationships among the GahuAu,Gama: *$(' and *$&* L 4n - = P Poole and G 7 7erdt, eds !exual "ntagonism1 !ocial "nalysis1 special issue *) 8ead, <enneth *$&1 LThe nama cult recalled L 4n G 7 7erdt, ed Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press 8eason, 5a"id *$%$ L#lassification, time and the organi6ation of production L 4n 5 8eason and 8oy +llen, eds Classifications in their !ocial Context1 9ondon: Academic Press 8eay, Marie @ *$($ &he Kuma1 %reedom and Conformity in the $e# Guinea Highlands1 Melbourne: Melbourne !ni"ersity Press 8eay, Marie @ *$%6 LWhen a group of men taAes a husband L "nthropological %orum 1:%%,$6 8eiter, 8ayna 8 N8appO *$%( &o#ard an "nthropology of *omen1 /e> :orA: Monthly 8e"ie> Press 8eiter, 8ayna 8 N8appO *$%( LMen and >omen in the south of -rance: public and pri"ate domains L 4n 8 8eiter, ed &o#ard an "nthropology of *omen1 /e> :orA: Monthly 8e"ie> Press 8ichards, =anet 8adcliffe *$&) N*$&'O &he !ceptical %eminist: " 'hilosophical En4uiry1 7armonds>orth: Pelican ;ooAs 8i"iUre, Peter G *$%* LMarriage: a reassessment L 4n 8 /eedham, ed Rethin.ing Kinship and Marriage1 ASA ** 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications 8ogers, Susan # *$%& LWomanFs place: a critical re"ie> of anthropological theory L Comparative !tudies in !ociety and History )':*)0,*6) 8Yheim, Ge6a *$)6 !ocial "nthropology: " 'sychoanalytic !tudy in "nthropology and a History of "ustralian &otemism1 /e> :orA: ;oni and 9i"eright 8osaldo, Michelle H *$%1 LWoman, culture, and society: a theoretical o"er"ie> L 4n M H 8osaldo and 9 9amphere, eds *oman+ Culture and !ociety1 Stanford: Stanford !ni"ersity Press 8osaldo, Michelle H *$&' LThe use and abuse of anthropology: reflections on feminism and cross,cultural understanding L !igns: -ournal of *omen in Culture and !ociety (:0&$,1*%

8osaldo, Michelle H and 9ouise 9amphere eds *$%1 *oman+ Culture+ and !ociety1 Stanford: Stanford !ni"ersity Press 8ubel, Paula G and Abraham 8osman *$%& ;our 3#n 'igs ;ou May $ot page30$$ Page 1'' Eat: " Comparative !tudy of $e# Guinea !ocieties1 #hicago: !ni"ersity of #hicago Press 8ubin, Gayle *$%( LThe traffic in >omen: notes on the Fpolitical economyF of se. L 4n 8 8eiter, ed &o#ard an "nthropology of *omen1 /e> :orA: Monthly 8e"ie> Press 8ubinstein, 8obert 9 *$&* L<no>ledge and political process in Malo L 4n M 8 Allen, ed 'olitics+ Economics and Ritual in ,sland Melanesia1 Sydney: Academic Press anuatu1

8unciman, W G *$&0 " &reatise on !ocial &heory1 ol1 <: &he Methodology of !ocial &heory1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press 8yan, 5FArcy *$($ L#lan formation in the Mendi ?alley L 3ceania )$:)(%,)&$ SacAs, <aren *$%( L+ngles re"isited: >omen, the organi6ation of production and pri"ate property L 4n 8 8eiter, ed &o#ard an "nthropology of *omen1 /e> :orA: Monthly 8e"ie> Press SacAs, <aren *$%$ !isters and *ives: &he 'ast and %uture of !exual E4uality1 9ondon: Green>ood Press Sahlins, Marshall *$%) !tone "ge Economics1 #hicago and /e> :orA: Aldine, Atherton 4nc Sahlins, Marshall *$%6 Culture and 'ractical Reason1 #hicago: #hicago !ni"ersity Press Salisbury, 8ichard - *$(6 L!nilineal descent groups in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands L Man (1:),% Salisbury, 8ichard - *$6) %rom !tone to !teel: Economic Conse4uences of a &echnological Change in $e# Guinea1 Melbourne: Melbourne !ni"ersity Press Salisbury, 8ichard - *$6( LThe Siane of the +astern 7ighlands L 4n P 9a>rence and M = Meggitt, eds Gods+ Ghosts and Men in Melanesia1 Melbourne: @.ford !ni"ersity Press Sayers, =anet *$&) 0iological 'olitics1 %eminist and "nti2%eminist 'erspectives1 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications Sayers, =anet *$&( LSe.ual contradictions: on -reud, psychoanalysis and feminism L %ree "ssociations *:%6,*'1 Scheffler, 7arold W *$%1 L<inship, descent and alliance L 4n = = 7onigman, ed Hand)oo. of !ocial and Cultural "nthropology1 #hicago: 8and,Mc/ally Scheffler, 7arold W *$&( L-iliation and affiliation L Man n s )':*,)* Schieffelin, +d>ard 9 *$&' L8eciprocity and the construction of reality L Man n s *(:('),(*% Schieffelin, +d>ard 9 *$&( LPerformance and the cultural construction of reality L "merican Ethnologist *):%'%,%)1 Schlegel, Alice, ed *$%% !exual !tratification: " Cross2Cultural ie#1 /e> :orA: #olumbia !ni"ersity Press Schneider, 5a"id M *$6( LSome muddles in the models: or, ho> the system really >orAs L 4n M ;anton, ed &he Relevance of Models for !ocial "nthropology1 ASA * 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications Schneider, 5a"id M *$6& "merican Kinship: " Cultural "ccount1 +ngle>ood #liffs: Prentice,7all page31''

Page 1'* Schneider, 5a"id M *$&0 L#onclusionsL to M Marshall, ed !i)lingship in 3ceania1 ASA@ Monograph & Ann Arbor: !ni"ersity of Michigan Press Schneider, 5a"id M *$&1 " Criti4ue of the !tudy of Kinship1 Ann Arbor: !ni"ersity of Michigan Press Sch>immer, +riA *$%0 Exchange in the !ocial !tructure of the 3ro.aiva1 9ondon: # 7urst and #o Sch>immer, +riA *$%1 L@bJects of mediation: myth and pra.is L 4n 4 8ossi, ed &he 6nconscious in Culture: &he !tructuralism of Claude L8vi2!trauss in 'erspective1 /e> :orA: + P 5utton and #o Sch>immer, +riA *$%$ LThe self and the product: concepts of >orA in comparati"e perspecti"e L 4n S Wallman, ed !ocial "nthropology of *or.1 9ondon: Academic Press Sch>immer, +riA *$&'a LThe limits of the economic ideology: a comparati"e anthropological study of >orA concepts L ,nternational !ociety of !cience -ournal 0):(*%,(0* Sch>immer, +riA *$&'b 'o#er+ !ilence and !ecrecy1 Toronto: ?ictoria !ni"ersity, Toronto Semiotic #ircle Prepublications Sch>immer, +riA *$&1 LMale couples in /e> Guinea L 4n G 7 7erdt, ed Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press Sciama, 9idia *$&* LThe problem of pri"acy in Mediterranean anthropology L 4n S Ardener, ed *omen and !pace1 9ondon: #room 7elm Se.ton, 9orraine 5 *$&) LFWoA MeriF: a >omenFs sa"ings and e.change system in 7ighland Papua /e> Guinea L 3ceania ():*6%,*$& Se.ton, 9orraine 5 *$&0 L9ittle >omen and big men in business: a GoroAan de"elopment proJect and social stratification L 3ceania (1:*00,*(' Se.ton, 9orraine 5 *$&1 LPigs, pearlshells, and F>omenFs >orAF: collecti"e response to change in 7ighland Papua /e> Guinea L 4n 5 @F;rien and S Tiffany, eds Rethin.ing *omen/s Roles1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press Shapiro, =udith *$%$ L#ross,cultural perspecti"es on se.ual differentiation L 4n 7 <atchadourian, ed Human !exuality1 " Comparative and (evelopmental 'erspective1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press Shapiro, =udith *$&0 LAnthropology and the study of gender L 4n + 9angland and W Go"e, eds " %eminist 'erspective in the "cademy1 #hicago: #hicago !ni"ersity Press Sharma, !rsula *$&' *omen+ *or.+ and 'roperty in $orth2*est ,ndia1 9ondon: Ta"istocA Publications Sillitoe, Paul *$%$ Give and &a.e: Exchange in *ola !ociety1 #anberra: Australian /ational !ni"ersity Press Smith, Paul *$%& L5omestic labour and Mar.Fs theory of "alue L 4n A <uhn and A M Wolpe, eds %eminism and Materialism1 9ondon: 8outledge and <egan Paul SWrum, Ar"e *$&1 LGro>th and decay: ;edamini notions of se.uality L 4n G 7 7erdt, ed Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia1 ;erAeley, 9os page31'* Page 1') Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press Souter, Ga"in *$61 $e# Guinea: &he Last 6n.no#n1 Sydney: Angus and 8obertson Spect, =ames and Peter = White *$%& &rade and Exchange in 3ceania and "ustralia1 Man.ind1 special issue **

Sperber, 5an *$%( Rethin.ing !ym)olism1 Trans by A 9 Morton #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Stanley, 9i6 and Sue Wise *$&0 0rea.ing 3ut: %eminist Consciousness and %eminist Research1 9ondon: 8outledge and <egan Paul StolcAe, ?erena *$&* LWomenFs labours: the naturalisation of social ineGuality and >omenFs subordination L 4n < :oung, # WolAo>it6 and 8 Mc#ullach, eds 3f Marriage and the Mar.et1 9ondon: # S + ;ooAs Strathern, Andre> = *$6$ L5escent and alliance in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands L 'roc1 Royal "nthrop1 ,nst1 *$6&:0%,() Strathern, Andre> = *$6$ L-inance and production: t>o strategies in /e> Guinea 7ighland e.change systems L 3ceania 1':1),6% Strathern, Andre> = *$%* &he Rope of Mo.a1 0ig Men and Ceremonial Exchange in Mount Hagen1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Strathern, Andre> = *$%) 3ne %ather+ 3ne 0lood1 #anberra: Australian /ational !ni"ersity Press Strathern, Andre> = *$%( LWhy is Shame on the SAinML Ethnology *1:01%,0(6 Strathern, Andre> = *$%% LMelpa food,names as an e.pression of ideas on identity and substance L -ournal of 'olynesian !ociety &6:('0,(** Strathern, Andre> = *$%& LF-inance and productionF re"isited: in pursuit of a comparison L 4n G 5alton, ed Research in Economic "nthropology *:%0,*'1 Strathern, Andre> = *$%$ LMenFs house, >omenFs house: the efficacy of opposition, re"ersal, and pairing in the Melpa "m) Kor cult L -ournal of 'olynesian !ociety &&:0%,(* Strathern, Andre> = *$&* LF/omanF: representations of identity in Mount 7agen L 4n 9 7oly and M StuchliA, eds &he !tructure of %ol. Models1 9ondon: Academic Press Strathern, Andre> = *$&)a LT>o >a"es of African models in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands L 4n A = Strathern, ed ,ne4uality in $e# Guinea Highlands !ocieties1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Strathern, Andre> = *$&)b LWitchcraft, greed, cannibalism and death: some related themes from the /e> Guinea 7ighlands L 4n M ;loch and = Parry, eds (eath and the Regeneration of Life1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Strathern, Andre> = *$&0 LThe Aula in comparati"e perspecti"e L 4n = W 9each and + 8 9each, eds &he Kula1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Strathern, Marilyn *$%) *omen in 0et#een: %emale Roles in a Male *orld1 9ondon: Seminar DAcademicE Press Strathern, Marilyn *$%( L/o money on our sAins 7agen migrants in Port Moresby L $e# Guinea Res1 0ull1 6* #anberra: Australian /ational !ni"ersity Strathern, Marilyn *$%& LThe achie"ement of se.: parado.es in 7agen gender,thinAing L 4n + Sch>immer, ed ;ear)oo. of !ym)olic "nthropology <1 McGill,QueenFs !ni"ersity Press27urst Strathern, Marilyn *$&' L/o nature, no culture: the 7agen case L 4n # Mac#ormacA page31') Page 1'0 and M Strathern, eds $ature+ Culture and Gender1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Strathern, Marilyn *$&*a LSelf,interest and the social good: some implications of 7agen gender imagery L 4n S @rtner and 7 Whitehead, eds !exual Meanings: &he Cultural Construction of Gender and !exuality1 /e> :orA: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press

Strathern, Marilyn *$&*b L#ulture in a netbag The manufacture of a subdiscipline in anthropology L Man n s *6:66(,6&& Strathern, Marilyn *$&1a L5omesticity and the denigration of >omen L 4n 5 @F;rien and S Tiffany, eds Rethin.ing *omen/s Roles: 'erspectives from the 'acific1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press Strathern, Marilyn *$&1b LSubJect or obJectM Women and the circulation of "aluables in 7ighlands /e> Guinea L 4n 8 7irschon, ed *omen and 'roperty+ *omen as 'roperty1 9ondon: #room 7elm Strathern, Marilyn *$&(a L<inship and economy: constituti"e orders of a pro"isional Aind L "merican Ethnologist *):*$*,)'$ Strathern, Marilyn *$&(b L=ohn 9ocAeFs ser"ant and the haus)oi from 7agen: thoughts on domestic labour L Critical 'hilosophy ):)*,1& Strathern, Marilyn 4n press LProducing difference: connections and disconnections in t>o /e> Guinea 7ighlands Ainship systems L 4n = - #ollier and S = :anagisaAo eds Gender and Kinship: Essays &o#ard a 6nified "nalysis1 Stanford: Stanford !ni"ersity Press N*$&%O Strauss, 7ermann *$6) (ie Mi2Kultur der Hagen)erg2!t=mme im >stlichen ?entral2$euguinea1 7amburg: #ram, de Gruyter and #o Tiffany, Sharon *$%& LModels and the social anthropology of >omen: a preliminary assessment L Man n s *0:01,(* Taussig, Michael T *$&' L8eification and the consciousness of the patient L !oc1 !ci1 Med1 *1;:0,*0 Tsing, Anna 9o>enhaupt and Syl"ia =unAo :anagisaAo *$&0 L-eminism and Ainship theory L Current "nthropology )1:(**,(*6 Tu6in, 5onald - *$%1 LSocial control and the tambaran in the SepiA L 4n A 9 +pstein, ed Contention and (ispute1 #anberra: A/! Press Tu6in, 5onald - *$&' &he oice of the &am)aran: &ruth and ,llusion in ,lahita "rapesh Religion1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press Tu6in, 5onald - *$&) L8itual "iolence among the 4lahita Arapesh L 4n G 7 7erdt, ed Rituals of Manhood1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press Tyler, Stephen A *$&1 LThe poetic turn in postmodern anthropology: the poetry of Paul -riedrichL N8e"ie> articleO "merican "nthropologist &6:0)&,006 ?an ;aal, = *$%( Reciprocity and the 'osition of *omen1 Amsterdam: "an Gorcum ?an ;aal, = *$&1 LThe dialectics of se. in Marind,Anim culture L 4n G 7 7erdt, ed Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press ?erdon, Michel *$&' L5escent: an operational "ie> L Man n s *(:*)$,*(' ?icedom, Georg - and 7erbert Tischner *$10,*$1& (ie M)o#am): die page31'0 Page 1'1 Kultur der Hagen)erg2!t=mme im >stlichen ?entral2$euguinea1 0 "ols 7amburg: #ram, de Gruyter and #o Wagner, 8oy *$6% &he Curse of !ou#1 #hicago: #hicago !ni"ersity Press Wagner, 8oy *$%) Ha)u: &he ,nnovation of Meaning in (ari)i Religion1 #hicago: !ni"ersity of #hicago Press

Wagner, 8oy *$%1 LAre there social groups in the /e> Guinea 7ighlandsML 4n M = 9eaf, ed %rontiers of "nthropology1 /e> :orA: 5 ?an /ostrand #ompany Wagner, 8oy *$%( &he ,nvention of Culture1 +ngle>ood #liffs: Prentice,7all Wagner, 8oy *$%%a LAnalogic Ainship: a 5aribi e.ample L "merican Ethnologist 1:6)0,61) Wagner, 8oy *$%%b LScientific and indigenous Papuan conceptuali6ations of the innate: a semiotic critiGue of the ecological perspecti"e L 4n T ;ayliss,Smith and 8 -eachem, eds !u)sistence and !urvival1 9ondon: Academic Press Wagner, 8oy *$%& Lethal !peech: (ari)i Myth and !ym)olic 3)viation1 4thaca: #ornell !ni"ersity Press Wagner, 8oy *$&0 LThe ends of innocence: conception and seduction among the 5aribi of <arimui and the ;aroA of /e> 4reland L 4n 5 =orgensen, ed Concepts of Conception: 'rocreation ,deologies in 'apua $e# Guinea1 Man.ind *1, special issue Wallman, Sandra *$%& L+pistemologies of se. L 4n 9 Tiger and 7 -o>ler, eds %emale Hierarchies1 #hicago: ;eresford Warry, Wayne *$&( LPolitics of a ne> order: the <afaina mo"ement L 4n *omen in 'olitics in 'apua $e# Guinea1 A / ! , >orAing paper 6 #anberra: 5epartment of Political and Social #hange Watson, =ames ; *$%' LSociety as organi6ed flo>: the Tairora case L !outh#estern -ournal of "nthropology )6:*'%,*)1 Weiner, Annette ; *$%6 *omen of alue+ Men of Reno#n: $e# 'erspectives in &ro)riand Exchange1 Austin: !ni"ersity of Te.as Press Weiner, Annette ; *$%& LThe reproducti"e model in Trobriand society L 4n = Specht and = P White eds &rade and exchange in 3ceania and "ustralia1 Man.ind special issue ** Weiner, Annette ; *$&' L8eproduction: a replacement for reciprocity L "merican Ethnologist %:%*,&( Weiner, Annette ; *$&) LSe.uality among the anthropologists: reproduction among the informants L 4n - = P Poole and G 7erdt, eds !exual "ntagonism+ Gender+ and !ocial Change in 'apua $e# Guinea1 !ocial "nalysis special issue *) Weiner, Annette ; *$&0 LFA >orld of made is not a >orld of bornF: doing Aula in <iri>ina L 4n = W 9each and + 8 9each, eds &he Kula1 $e# 'erspectives on Massim Exchange1 #ambridge: #ambridge !ni"ersity Press Weiner, =ames - *$%$ L8estricted e.change in the /e> Guinea 7ighlands L Can)erra "nthropology ):%(,$0 Weiner, =ames - *$&) LSubstance, siblingship and e.change: aspects of social structure in /e> Guinea L !ocial "nalysis **:0,01 Weiner, =ames - 4n press &he Heart of the 'earlshell: &he Mythological (imension of %oi !ociality1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press page31'1 Page 1'( Whitehead, Ann *$&1 LMen and >omen, Ainship and property: some general issues L 4n 8 7irschon, ed *omen and 'roperty: *omen as 'roperty1 9ondon: #room 7elm :anagisaAo, Syl"ia =unAo *$%$ L-amily and household: the analysis of domestic groups L 4n "nnual Revie# of "ntrhopology & Palo Alto: Annual 8e"ie>s 4nc :eatman, Anna *$&1 LGender and the differentiation of social life into public and domestic domains L 4n A :eatman, ed Gender and !ocial Life1 !ocial "nalysis1 special issue *(

:oung, <ate, + WolAo>it6 and 8 Mc#ullagh eds *$&* 3f Marriage and the Mar.et1 *omen/s !u)ordination in ,nternational 'erspective1 9ondon: # S + ;ooAs :oung, Michael *$&0 Magicians of Manumanua: Living Myth in Kalauna1 ;erAeley, 9os Angeles, 9ondon: !ni"ersity of #alifornia Press page31'( Page 1'%

4/5+I+S page31'% Page 1'$

Author 4nde. A Adams, Par"een, 6(, *)0 Allen, Michael 8 , (, 1%, 01&n, 0($nn Ardener, +d>in, (), 0(6n, 0&0n Ardener, Shirley, %), 0((n, 0(6n AtAinson, =ane Monnig, 01, 0%, %0 AugR, Marc, 0% ; ;arnes, =ohn A , 0*6, 0()n ;arnett, Ste"e, *0(, *10, 0(&n, 060,061n ;arrett, Michele, )1, )%, 6(, *)0, 0(1nn, 061n ;arth, -redriA, 0'' ;ateson, Gregory, %',%*, 001,00( ;attaglia, 5ebbora, *%*, *%),*%0, *&6, )%',)%), )$), 06$nn ;attel, 8oXsXn, 0('n ;eer, Gillian, 6, % ;ell, 5iane, 01 ;erndt, 8onald M , (', 0)( ;iersacA, Aletta, $0,$1, *'&, **6,**$, *)1, *0', *&*, )1&, )(1, )%%, )&$, 0(&n, 06'nn, 0%%n, 0&0nn ;loch, Maurice, &), *'), *%1, )(), 06)n, 061n, 0&'n ;ohannan, 9aura, 06%n ;ohannan, Paul, 06%n

;onte, Pierre, *(), 06%n, 06&n ;oon, =ames A , 0** ;ourdieu, Pierre, $, *%), 0'0,0'1, 061n, 06(n ;o>den, 8oss, 61, 0(&n ;o>les, Gloria, 0('n ;oyd, 5a"id, ((, 0(&n ;rindley, Marianne, )00, )10, 0%(n ;ro>n, 5a"id = = , 0%*n, 0%$n ;ro>n, Paula, (, (', *66, 0()n, 0%&n ;uchbinder, Georgeda, %*, *&6, 0%%n ;uJra, =anet M , )(, 0((n # #aplan, Patricia, )(, 0((n #arrier, =ames, 0(0n #aulfield, Mina 5a"is, 06)n, 066,06%n #hodoro>, /ancy, 0((,0(6n #ho>ning, Ann, ( #lay, ;renda = , *%1, *&0, *&(, *&6, *$' #lifford, =ames, *%( #ollier, =ane - , 1%, *0$, 0&0n #ooA, +d>in A , ( #ounts, 5a"id, )&$ #ounts, 5orothy, *&$ #rain, Maurice, 0(*n 5 5amon, -redericA 7 , *$),*$$ passim, )'), )'0, )'(, )6%, 066n, 0%'nn, 0%1n, 0%$n, 0&'n de #ourtri"on, 4sabelle, $ de 9eper"anche, Marie, 1&, (' 5undes, Alan, 6(, *)6, 0($n, 06*n + +isenstein, 7ester, )1, )&,)$, 01$n, 0&*n +lshtain, =ean ;ethAe, $, )1, 0', 0*),0*0, 010, 0('n, 0(1,0((n, 0&*n +ndicott, <aren 9ampell, *1*

+nne>, =udith, 01$n page31'$ Page 1*' +pstein, Arnold 9 , 0%'n +rnst, Thomas M , )'( +tienne, Mona, 06)n, 060n +"ans,Pritchard, + + , 0()n -aithorn, +li6abeth, *'(, 0($n -ardon, 8ichard, **$, 0(%,0(&n -eil, 5aryl < , ., 1&, 6%,6$, %1, *(1,*((, *6*, )(%, 01%n, 0((n, 06'n, 06(nn, 06(,066n, 06%,06&n, 0%*,0%)n -inney, ;en 8 , 0(%n -orge, Anthony, *)(, )%$, 06',06*n, 06*n -ortes, Meyer, )', )&(, 0((n, 0(6n -oster, 8obert = , 0%%,0%&n -o., 8obin, 0&*n -ranAenberg, 8onald, *1$ -ranAland, 9inda, )0', )(*, 0%*n, 0%$n -riedl, +rnestine, 0((n -riedman, =onathan, *16, 06)n, 0&*n G Gardner, 5on S , *%1, 01%n Gatens, Moira, 6', $(, *)$, 0(1,0((n Geert6, #lifford, (% Gell, Alfred, 0'', 0&'n Gellner, +rnest, $, 0(',0(*n Gelpi, ;arbara, )% Ge>ert6, 5eborah ; , *6*, 01%n, 0%$n Gillison, Gillian S , &(, $(, *'%, *'&, **',**6 passim, *)(, *)6, *$), )**, )*%, ))', )1(,)1%, )(', )(1, )%$, )&6, )$), 06'nn, 0%0n, 0%(n, 0%6n, 0&'n, 0&0n Godelier, Maurice, 1%, *06, *10, *6*, *6%, *%%, )*&, 061n, 0%(n, 0%&n Goldman, 9aurence, 0%&n Goodale, =ane # , 0(*n, 0&'n

Goodenough, Ward 7 , 0('n Goody, =acA, 01$n Gourlay, <enneth A , 01&n Gregory, #hristopher A , (, *&, *01, *10,*1( passim, *6*, )$0, 06)n, 061n, 06%n, 06&nn, 06$n, 0%*n, 0%0nn, 0%&n Gudeman, Stephen, 0(&n 7 7ara>ay, 5onna, 06, 0(*n 7arris, @li"ia, %0, $1, *(0, 0*1, 0(1n, 06)n 7arrison, 8achel, )6, )%, 0('n, 061n, 0&*n 7arrison, Simon, *)1, *)&, *%1, ))*, )&6, 01*, 01$n, 0(&n, 0&0n 7a>Ains, Mary, %0,%1 7ays, Patricia 7 , 0*%,0*&, 0($n, 0%6n, 0&*n 7ays, Terence + , 0*%,0*&, 0($n, 0%6n, 0&*n 7elli>ell, #hristine, 0(6n 7erdt, Gilbert 7 , (, (6,6' passim, *)', *)6, *)$, *0', )'&,)*$ passim, )1(, )&*, 01%n, 0()n, 0(0n, 0(1n, 0%0nn, 0%1n, 0%(nn 7irst, Paul, 060n 7utt, #orinne, 0',0*, 0(*n 7yndman, 5a"id, 16 4 4llich, 4"an, *(%, 0(1,0((n = =ameson, -redericA, )( =olly, Margaret, &',&), &%, *((, 0(6nn, 0($n, 0%6n =orgensen, 5a"id, 01%n =osephides, 9isette, *10, *1(,*(* passim, *(0, *61, *6%, *&', 0'1, 0)(, 01&n, 060n, 061n, 06(nn, 066n, 06&n, 06$n =uillerat, ;ernard, 0%(n < <ahn, =oel S , 06%n <eesing, 8oger M , (), ((, ($,6', *)&, 0(1n, 06*n <elly, 8aymond # , %*, )'&, )'$, 0%0n, 0%1n, 0&'n <eohane, /annerl @ , )% <lein, 8enate 5uelli, 0('n

<o"el, =oel, 0(( <riste"a, =ulia, 01$n, 0(1n, 0&)n <uhn, Annette, )(, 01$n, 066n 9 9a -ontaine, =ean S , %1, %6, 0%)n, 0&*n 9amphere, 9ouise, %), 0((n 9angness, 9e>is 9 , 11,1(, (',(( passim, ($,6', 6),60, 6(, )'(, 0()nn, 0((n, 06'n, 0&0n 9each, +dmund 8 , (, ** 9each, =erry, ( 9eacocA, +leanor ;urAe, *00, *0$, *1',*1*, 0*), 06)n, 060n 9eahy, Michael, 0(*n 9ederman, 8ena, *'), )&(, 00%, 01%n, 066n, 0%%n 9eenhardt, Maurice, *%(, )6&,)%*, )%& 9e8oy, =ohn, )%&, 0%6n 9essing, 5oris, ( 9R"i,Strauss, #laude, )$0, 0'0, 0**,0*0 passim, 0*1, 0%*n, 0&*nn 9e>is, Gilbert, *)6,*)%, *%1, 0*', 00), 0(&n, 0($n 9indenbaum, Shirley, *'', )'(, )'&,)'$, )*(, 0(&n 9iPuma, +d>ard, 0)6, 0%6n, 0%%n, 0&0n 9lobera, =osep 8 , 06%n page31*' Page 1** 9loyd, Gene"ie"e, $1, $( 9Vfgren, @""ar, 0(6n M Mc5onough, 8oisin, )6, )%, 0('n, 061n, 0&*n Macintyre, Martha, *%*, 06$n, 0%'n Mac<innon, #atharine A , )(, )$, 0%0n Mac9ean, /eil, )(1, )&$, 0%'n, 0%%n Malino>sAi, ;ronisla>, **, )0(, )10 MarAs, +laine, $ Marriott, Mc<im, 01&,01$n Marshall, Mac, 0%1n

Martin, M <ay, 0((n Mathieu, /icole,#laude, 0&)n Matthe>s, =ill =ulius, )6, 0('n Mauss, Marcel, *$, *11, *%$, 0&*n Mead, Margaret, 6*, %',%*, 0)1 Meggitt, Mer"yn = , 1(, (', (), (0, %*, )1&, 0)(, 0()n, 06'nn, 0%)n Meigs, Anna S , *'(,*'%, 0(0n, 0($n, 0%6n Miller, 5aniel, 06&n Millett, <ate, 0('n Milton, <ay, %0 Mimica, =adran, 0%$n Mitchell, =uliet, 0**, 0&*n, 0&)n ModJesAa, /icholas, 1%, *0%, *1), *(6, *66, 01%n, 060n, 061,06(n, 06(nn, 066n, 06&n, 0%&n Munn, /ancy 5 , *%1, *$), *$6, *$&, )$(, 0'1, 0%'n / /adel, Sigmund - , 0&)n /ash, =ill, 0%'n /eedham, 8odney, %*, 01&n /e>man, Philip 9 , ((, *'', 0(&n @ @aAley, Ann, 0(*n @F;rien, 5enise, ( @F;rien, Mary, 0&)n @F7anlon, Michael, )0', )(*, 0%*n, 0%&n, 0%$nn @llman, ;ertell, *6', 06)nn, 060n, 06%n, 06&n @rti6, Sutti, *%% @rtner, Sherry ; , %1, &&,&$, $0, )&1, 0(%n, 0&*n @>ens, #raig, 0& P PaJac6Ao>sAa, #laire, 0(1n Parry, =onathan, *'), )() Penn, Mischa, 0(&n Pla6a, MoniGue, 01$,0('n, 0(1n, 06*n

Poole, -it6 =ohn P , (6, *)', 01%n, 0($nn, 06$n, 0&'n Q Quinn, /aomi, %0 8 8abino>, Paul, 0(%n 8adcliffe,;ro>n, A 8 , $, 0(*,0()n 8am, <alpana, 06%n 8app N8eiterO, 8ayna 8 , 0(6n 8appaport, 8oy A , %*, *&6, 0%%n 8ead, <enneth, (), (0, (0,(6 passim, 6),60, %*, &), $$, *'1, )'(, 0()n, 0(0n 8eason, 5a"id, *%), 0('n 8eay, Marie @ , (', )%$, 0)(, 0%1n 8eiter N8appO, 8ayna 8 , %), 0((n, 06)n 8ichards, =anet 8adcliffe, )6 8i"iUre, Peter, 01&n 8ogers, Susan # , %0, *1', 0(6n 8osaldo, Michelle, ), )%, )&, 01, 1%, %), %0, %1, &*, *0$, 0*), 0((n, 0(6n, 0&0n 8osman, Abraham, (, 1%, )6( 8ubel, Paula G , (, 1%, )6( 8ubin, Gayle, 0$, $1, 00',00*, 0&*nn 8ubinstein, 8obert 9 , *'%,**' passim, 0($n 8unciman, W G , $,*', 06)n 8yan, 5FArcy, (* S SacAs, <aren, *0$,*1*, *1), 0**, 06)n, 06%n Sahlins, Marshall, )', *0(, *16, *66, *%), *%6, 0'1, 06&n, 0&*n Salisbury, 8ichard - , (', 0%(,0%6n, 0%6n Sayers, =anet, )1, 0&*n Scheffler, 7arold W , )(%, 0((n, 0&)n Schieffelin, +d>ard 9 , *%1, ))), )(%, )$', 01%n Schlegel, Alice, 01, 0&)n Schneider, 5a"id M , $1, *0(, 01&n, 0((n, 0&)n Sch>immer, +riA, *)*, *)%, )'),)'0, )$%, 0($n, 06*n, 06%n, 06&n, 0%*n, 0%6n

Sciama, 9idia, %0 Se.ton, 9orraine, 5 , &0,&6 passim, )1$, 0(6n, 0(%nn, 0%6nn Shapiro, =udith, 6( Sharma, !rsula, 06)n Sillitoe, Paul, 66,6%, 6$ Sil"erman, Martin G , *0(, *10, 0(&n, 060,061n Smith, Paul, 06(n SWrum, Ar"e, 0&'n Souter, Ga"in, 0(*n Sperber, 5an, *%, *%1 Stanley, 9i6, 0('n StolcAe, ?erena, 0(1n Strathern, Andre> = , (', (*, *&6, )(), )(0, )(6, )(%, )&$, 01%n, 0($,06'n, page31** Page 1*) 06(n, 06$n, 0%*n, 0%%n, 0%&n, 0&'n, 0&*n Strathern, Marilyn, 1%, %*, %&, &$, *((, *%$, )&1, 01%n, 01$n, 0(*n, 0(6n, 060n, 06&,06$n, 0%*n, 0%1n, 0%(n, 0%%n, 0%&nn, 0&'n, 0&0n Strauss, 7ermann, 01%n T Taussig, Michael T , 06)n Tiffany, Sharon W , %0 Tsing, Anna 9o>enhaupt, %( Tu6in, 5onald - , *'1, *)', )&$, 0(0,0(1n, 06*nn, 060n, 0&'n, 0&*n Tyler, Stephen A , *& ? ?an ;aal, = , *)',*)*, 00', 0&'n, 0&)n, 0&0n ?erdon, Michel, 0()n ?icedom, Georg - , 01%,01&n ?oorhies, ;arbara, 0((n W Wagner, 8oy, 6, *%, )', 00, (), $0, *0*, *%1, *%(, *%$, *&', *&*, *$), )'%,)'&, )%&, )%$, )&&, )$0, 0)', 0('n, 0()n, 0((n, 0(%n, 06)n, 06$n, 0%*n, 0%)n Wallman, Sandra, ($

Warry, Wayne, &6, )1$, 0(6,0(%n, 0(%n Watson, =ames, 0%*n Weiner, Annette ; , ., *11, *$6, ))), )0*,)1' passim, 0(*n, 061n, 06$n, 0%'nn, 0%*n, 0%1nn, 0%(nn Weiner, =ames - , *%1, )'&, )0', )1(, 01%n, 06$n, 0%6n Werbner, 8ichard, 0%(n, 0%&n Weschler, =ohn, (* Whitehead, Ann, 06)n, 060n Whitehead, 7arriet, )&1, 01%n Wise, Sue, 0('n Wolpe, Ann Marie, )(, 01$n Woolley, Penny, 060n : :anagisaAo, Syl"ia =unAo, %0, %( :eatman, Anna, %0, %(,%6, 0(6n, 0(&n :oung, <ate + , )(, 0$, *(0, 0('n, 06)n :oung, Michael, *$&, )&6, 0%$n, 0&'n page31*) Page 1*0

SubJect 4nde. A Abelam DMiddle SepiAE, *)(, 06',06*nn Aesthetic: as constraint, *&$, )&6,)&%, 0)& of form, *&',*&*, *&&, *$' Judgment, )%%,)%&, )&* African: Ainship theories, *'1 models in /e> Guinea 7ighlands, (' Agency: and incompleteness, ))) transformed, *(6,*(% Agent, )6&,0'( passim

appearance of, )%%, )&&,)&$ distinguished from FpersonF, )%0 as indi"idual actor, )0*, 0') Melanesian concept of, )%), 0)1, 000, 00% as subJect, )6&,)%1 transformed, *(6,*(% Western concept of, *0%, *1',*1*, *(& Alienation, *1), *(*,*($ passim, *6',*6), *$0, 06%,06&n in commodity relations, *6) Alternation: bet>een aesthetic forms, *&), )'*, )$& bet>een t>o types of sociality, *1,*(, $6,$%, *&%, *&&, )&1, )&%, 0&'n Analysis, as literary form, i., 6,&, *%,*&, 0'$ Analogic: gender, )$&,0'( Ainship, )%& Analogy, *1, 0', 0*, *&) bet>een clans, )($ bet>een male2female, *&(, )00,)01, )1*,)10, )$&,0'), 0'1, 0%0n bet>een persons2substance and >ealth, )'%,)'$, )*0, ))$ bet>een relations, )%& semen and blood, )*6, )1(,)1&, 0%6n semen and milA, )*',)*$ passim, )1), )1& bet>een societies, 0' bet>een substances, penis and breast, )*',)*$ passim, 06*n, 0%0n yam and child, )0(,)0$ passim Ancestors, (1, &', **), *&*, )0(, )(0, )60 Androgyny: of boys in homose.ual ritual, )*), )*( as FcompletedF persons, ))), )6), 0') image of, *1,*(, *)), *)(,*0), *&1,*&(, )$&, 06$n >ealth in form of, )'*, )'( Anthropology and feminism !ee -eminist anthropology

Anthropophagy, **1,**(, 06'n Antagonism, bet>een se.es !ee Se.ual antagonism Appropriation of labor !ee #ontrol Arapesh DMiddle SepiAE, )&6, 06*nn, 0&'n Audience, **&, *&*, )6', )&6, )&$,)$*, )$0, 0&0n unity of, )%&, 0%$n Australia, Aboriginal, 1%, 0(*n Authorship: of acts, *1',*1*, *(&, )%0 of con"ention, 0*$, 0)),0)0, 0)$ Western concept of, *'1, **$, *0(, *((, *6) Autonomy: in personal action D7agenE, &$,$' Western concept of, *(%,*(&, 0)), 0)1 A"atip DSepiAE, )&6 A>a D+astern 7ighlandsE, 0(&n page31*0 Page 1*1 ; ;aA>eri, #ameroons, 0(6n ;arotse, Hambia, *1$ ;aruya DAnga,speaAers, +astern 7ighlandsE, )*&, 0%(n ;ena ;ena D+astern 7ighlandsE, 11,1(, (0, 6(, )1%, 0(&n ;ig men: and ceremonial e.change, *16,*1% and e.ploitation, *(* DGimiE **(,**6 and great men, 0%&n D7agenE )((, 0%&n ;imin,<usAusmin DMountain @A, West SepiA Pro"inceE, (&, 0($nn, 06$n ;iological:

determinism, )%, 0' essentialism, 6', )1* ;irth !ee #hildbirth ;lood, letting of, *)6,*)%, )*1, )*%, )1(,)1% !ee also Maternal blood; Menstruation; /osebleeding ;ody, Melanesian concept of, *(, *'0, *'%, **1, )'&, )6&ff, )$&,)$$ and effects, *&)ff, )$1, 0($n and gro>th, )'%,)*$ passim presentation of, **&, *)*,*)), )$1 ;ody, Western concept of: in feminist theory, 6',6( passim, 0)0 and gender identity, *)$,*0' physical and social, )$&,)$$ Dsee MicrocosmE ;ougain"ille, 0%'n ;ride>ealth, )'%,)'&, ))6, )1&, )66, )&$, )$*, 0&'n idiom in #o. meri, &1, )1$,)(' and semen e.change, )'$, )*0 # #apability !ee #apacity #apacity, &%, *&),*&0, )1* elicitation of, $0, *)0, *0*, *&*, )%%, )&&, )$'ff, )$% embodied, ))',))1, )1&,)1$ generali6ed, )%&,)%$, )&0,)&% as po>er, *)&, )%&,)%$ #ash crops, %%, &0,&1, *1& #ause and effect, *)&, *%0, *&6, ))*,))), )%0, )$6, )$$ff, 0)&, 0%$n #eremonial e.change, 1%, (*, 66,%', *1(,*1%, *($, )11, )66, )&( D#hua"eE &6 D.ulaE (, *$*,*$$, )$( passim, 06$n Dmo.aE %%, *16,*(*, *$$,)'%, 0%*n, 0%&n, DPaielaE **%,**& DteeE 6%,6&, 0%*,0%)n, 0%%n and transformation of identity, *($ff #hamba, #ameroon, 0(&n

#hambri DMiddle SepiAE, 0%$n #hildbirth, )*%, ))6, )60, )%$, )&0, 0&)n image of in #o. meri, &1,&( as male act, **0, **6, *)0, *)$, ))%, )1', 00), 0&0nn Melanesian theories of, 0*6,0*& re,enacted, )1%,)1&, )$1,)$( #himbu D#entral 7ighlandsE, 1$, 0%&n #hua"e D#entral 7ighlandsE, &6, 0(%n #laims to labor, *00,*6% passim #lan, groups, 10,6( passim, *)', )'' as unit, )'1, )(% #lassification: in anthropological analysis, 6$, %*,%), $)ff, esp $( in Western Ano>ledge, (, *), *%), )$&, 0*$ #oercion, by cause, )%), )$0,)$& passim !ee also -orce #ollecti"e life, female, &', &1,&6, )1$ male, 11, 1%,1&, (1,((, *$6, )'(, )*0 #ollecti"e,particular relations, 1&,1$, &*, $),$% passim, *)*,*)(, *60, *6(,*6%, )(%, )6',)6*, )%1,)&&, 0)', 0(%n made to appear, *&&,*&$ #ollecti"ity: and clanship, )(%,)(& concept of, *),*(, 1&,1$, 66,%', *)*, *0*, *(&, )6', )%( and Ainship, )6*ff Western concept of, *%) Western eGuation of >ith society, %', %0, 0*&,0)' #ommodity: fetishism, *06, *(), *%*, 0%0n and gift economies, *10,*16, *6%, *%6, )$0, 06)nn Dsee Gift,commodity fictionE metaphor of, *01,*06, *(% >omen as Dsee +.change of >omen Women as FobJectsFE #omparison, cross cultural, 1, &, 0*, *10, 01',011

in .ula, *$% as measurement, bet>een men, )&) >ithin Melanesia, 1(,1$, ))& in mo.a, *(&, )'6 #omplete,incomplete, )), *&(, ))) F#ompletionF, of identity, *)$, *%),*%0, *$0, *$(, )'0, ))), )%*, )$', )$0, 0') #oncealment: of con"ention, *%), *&', *$' of FrealityF, *11, 0'1 of relations of production, *16,*1%, *(',*(*, *(), *(( and re"elation Dsee 8e"elationE #onception, theories of: DGimiE )1%, 06'n, DPaielaE )1&, 06'n DSambiaE )*6, )0$, )1(, 0%(n DTrobriandE )0(ff #onsciousness: and the body, *0*,*0) in feminist theory, 6',6( passim and reason, $', $(,$6 #onsumption: denigrated, &1 in gift economies, *&1, )$0,)$& #onsumpti"e production: economy of, *11,*1(, 061n and Ano>ledge in, )&&,)$&, 0*6,0*% #ontainer,contained: created by detach, page31*1 Page 1*( ment, )*1,)*&, )$) image of, *)(, *)$, *&%, ))0, )0(,)06, )0$, )(), 00),000, 0%(n, 0%6n #ontainment, and gro>th, ))% !ee also +ncompassment #ontrol: as analytical concept, *1* of crops in gardens D7agenE *1&, *61,*6(, )(),)(1 idioms of, $% of persons o"er sel"es, *(*,*($ passim

of pigs D7agenE *1$, *6',*6*, D<e>aE, *1$,*(*, DTombema +ngaE 06%,06&n o"er resources and egalitarianism, *0$,*1* bet>een se.es, *(, 60,61, *)6, )11, 0*1,0*( of "aluables in .ula, *$),*$0 Western concept of, %1ff, &$, **$,*)' of >omenFs labor by men, 60,61, *1*, *00,*6% passim #on"ention, 0', 0* concealed, *%), *&', *$' #on"ention,in"ention, *&$,*$', *%1,*%(, *%% in Melanesian thought, 0)1 personified in Western thought, 0)0,0)1 !ee also 8eification #ross,cultural comparison !ee #omparison #ross,se., relations, &%, **(, *)), *&1, *&(,*&&, )1',)1), )&% defined, *&0 in mo.a, )') same,se. relations, ))), )&%, )&$,)$$, 0)(, 00( substitution, *$1,*$(, ))6,))%, )1', )$) substitution in .ula, *$%,*$& #ultural construction of gender, 6&,6$, %',%6, $), *&1, 0)) #ulture: as agent, *0( as differentiating, )', 0',0), *($ as obJect of Western Ano>ledge, *$,)*, ((, &$ff, $(, *%(, *&6, 0** as o>ned, 0))ff !ee also /ature,culture F#ustomF, on Pentecost 4sland, %$,&), &% 5 5aribi DSouthern 7ighlands2+astern 7ighlandsE, *%$, )'%,)'&, )1*, 0%)n 5ar>in, #harles, 6,% 5aulo D+astern 7ighlandsE, &%, *)1, )$', 0%6n and gro>th, )1$,)(' #o. meri rituals in, &),&( 5ebate, in feminist scholarship, )1ff

de ;eau"oir, Simone, 0*& 5ecomposition, )1%, )&&, )$*,)$) of androgyne, )$& 5ependency, 1$ collecti"i6ed in ritual, **$,*)(, )61 bet>een e.change partners, *1(, *6*, )6( in Ain relations, %&, &%, $',$), )6( bet>een se.es, (0, )'0, ))' in unmediated relations, )'%,)*$ passim 5escent groups: debate o"er, 1$,(0 and Ainship, )(%,)(& DPaielaE *)1 reconsidered, )(),)6' passim !ee also #lan 5etachment, *(, ***, *)1, *)$, *%&, )1(, )&& in identity D7agenE, )'',)') Dsee also Partible personE !ee also Separation 5i"idual !ee Multiple person 5i"ision of labor, 1$, *)*, )&) and alienation, *(*,*($ D7agenE $',$*, *1&,*(*, *6),*61, )'' DMuyu>E *$0,*$1 DSa,speaAersE &',&* 5omains: of action, )6$ male,female, 10,1( and models of society, %(ff !ee also Political,domestic domains 5omesticity: collecti"i6ed, **$,*)*, )*&, )61 eGuated >ith >omen, %0,%1, %(, %%, &&,$), *0', )&0, 0** Melanesian images of, **(, **$ff, 0%&n

reanaly6ed, )&),)&& Western concept of, &&,&$, $*,$), 0*(,0*6 5omestic labor, debate, *(0,*(1, )$0, 06(n 5omestic,political domains !ee Political,domestic domains 5omestic relations, %%, *)* eclipse of "alue in, *6(, ))6 D7agenE &&,$) DMuyu>E *$0,*$( 5omination, )6, )%, 0', *(*, *((, 0)(,00$ passim as claims, $&,*0) passim in a gift economy, *66, 0)6ff Western concept of, *0, *1% !ee also Male domination 5ualism, $6, *&$,*$', )10, )%*, )%1 !ee also Pair 5una DWestern 7ighlandsE, *1*,*1), 066n, 0%&n + +astern,Western 7ighlands, 16 compared, )6'ff +ating, acti"ity of, )', )&&ff !ee also #onsumption -eeding relations +clipse, of one relation2acti"ity by another, *((, *(%, *60, *66, *6%, )'', )'(, )*$, )&&,)&$, )$(, 066n +ffect: as an action, *%1, ))0, )60, )&1 as release of a form, *)', *)0, *6(, ))0 !ee also #ause and effect +fficacy, $&,*0) passim !ee also #apacity +galitarianism, in hunter,gatherer economies, *0&,*1* !ee also +Guality F+lbo>F: of a., *%* of relationships, ))%, )%',)%), )%% +licitation, *(, *&0, )1*, )1), )$6, )$$, 0'), 00(

page31*( Page 1*6 +nclosure: breaAing out from, ))0, )&', )$6,)$% in gardens, )(1, 0%%n in homose.ual cult, )*&,)*$ maternal, )*&, ))%, )0$ in ritual, **1,**(, *)', 00), 06'n, 0%0n, 0%%n, 0&0n +ncompassment, *(, &), ***, **1,**(, *)',*)( passim, )1',)6' passim, )($,)6', )&1,)&(, 00),001 +nga DWestern 7ighlandsE, 1$, 06'n, 0%%n !ee also Mae,+nga; Tombema +nga +Guality: bet>een e.change partners, *1(,*1%, )'6,)'%, ))0 and ineGuality: in homose.ual ritual, )'$ff bet>een men, *11,*1%, *(',*(*, )(& bet>een se.es, )%,)&, 0)6 in social life, *06,*10, *1%, )%$, 060n +toro DPapuan plateauE, 0%0n +"ent, *)&, *&*,*&), )&% Ano>ledge as, )&$,)$', )$6 !ee also Performance +.change: as Fcohesi"eF, 66,6&, *$*, 0**,0*), 0*1 direct and indirect, )'$, )*% generali6ed, )*& o"ert and co"ert DPaielaE **%,**& of perspecti"es, )'%, )0', )1*, )1), )6*, )%*, )%(, 0)%, 006 restricted and generali6ed, )6% of se.ual substances, *'6,*'%, *11 of >omen, *'', )*&, ))(,))6, )1&,)1$, 0%)n, 0&*n, D7ighlandsE ))&,)0*, DTrobriandsE )0* of >omen and feminist critiGue, 0**,0*6, 00',00* passim !ee also <in,based e.changes; Mediated,unmediated e.change +.ogamy: ))$, )(&,)($ D7agenE )'',)'*, 0%$n

+.perience, (),(0, 6),60, 0)0 use of in anthropological analysis, (), (6,(%, 0(*n +.planation !ee <no>ledge +.ploitation: D7agenE *()ff by men of >omen, *00,*6% passim +.ternal, face: DMuyu>E *$( DTrobriandsE )06,)0%, )0$,)1', )1) +.ternal,internal, parts of body, )'%,)'& +.traction, ))',))*, )1',)1*, )((, )&' of boys from domestic sphere, ))(ff of child, )0%, )1', )1) of girls from male Ain, ))(ff of >ealth from partner, *$&,*$$ !ee also Theft -eeding, relations, )&$ff, 0%$n food, )61, )$6 DGimiE maternal2paternal, )16 and gro>ing distinguished, ))%, )0&,)0$, )(',)(*, )&0,)&1, )$1 DMuyu>E *$1 DSambiaE father,child, )*%,)*&, of boys by men, )*',)*), )*1 bet>een spouses, 0%1n DTrobriandsE mother,child, ))%, )0(, )0%, father,child, )00, )0(, )0%, )0&, 0%(n -emale !ee Male,female; Same se. relations -emale initiation, *'', 0(&,0($n DGimiE **),**0, ))' -eminism: and anthropology, %, &, *',**, 0** and gender identity, 6',6( passim, 0(1n !ee also -eminist anthropology -eminist, anthropology, .i, 0(,1', *06,*0% critiGue of classification, %*,%)

critiGue of concept of culture, *00 critiGue of e.change of >omen, 0**, 0&*nn critiGue of political,domestic di"ide, %1,%(, *00,*01 scholarship, &,$, *), )),1', eGuated >ith F>omenF, 06,0%, 6),60 F-lo>F: of gifts bet>een persons, *%&,*%$ and gro>th, *&* of things in transactions, *$),)'% passim, )1$, 0%*n -lutes, as androgynous, *)&, )*'ff DGahuAu,GamaE (0ff DGimiE ***,**6 D7agenE 01%,01&n menFs theft of from >omen, (1, *'0, *'(,*'6, ***,**6 passim DSambiaE )*',)**, )*1,)*( se.ual identity of, *)6,*)% -ood: and Ano>ledge, )&&,)$& nurture by FmotherF, &(, )(',)(*, 0%6n prestations of DMuyu>E 0%'n, DSaE &',&* and social identity, &*,&), 0%6n taboos, )' Western concept of, )(* !ee also -eeding relations -orce, *)1,*)(, *)$ in childbirth, ))&,)1' passim in gift e.change, ))),))0 in social action, *)', )$%, 0'',0)*, 0)%,0)& !ee also #oercion -ore D+astern 7ighlandsE, 0(&n G GahuAu,Gama D+astern 7ighlandsE, (0,(6 passim, 6),60, $$, )1%, 0(),0(0nn, 0(&n Gardens !ee Women and gardens Ga>a D/orthern MassimE, *%1, *$*, 0'1, 0%'nn

Gender: aesthetics of, *&),*&%, ))*,))0 analogic, )$&,0'( attributes and property, *'0,*'% defined, i., 10, *&(, 0(*n identity, *)),*0) passim, *&(, )*' images of in art, 61, *)(,*)%, 0(&n, 06',06*n page31*6 Page 1*% Gift, and commodity e.change: as anticipated outcome, )*$,))1 critiGue of, *10,*1% difference bet>een, *6* economy, described, *1(,*16 Dsee also #onsumpti"e productionE e.change, .i,.iii Gift,commodity, fiction of, %, *&,*$, *01, *06, *%(, 010 Gimi D+astern 7ighlandsE, &(, *'%, *'&, **$,*0' passim, *($, *6(, )'1, )**, ))', )06, )0&, )10, )6*, )6(, )66, )%), )&6, )&&, )$', )$), )$$, 06'nn, 0&'n ideas of gro>th, )(', )(1 induced bleeding among, )16,)1%, 0%(,0%6nn initiation ritual, **',**6, 0&0n Gnau DWest SepiAE, 0($n Goodenough 4sland D/orthern MassimE, *$&, )&6, 0%$n GoroAa area, 1$, 0(%n Groups: anthropological concept of, 1$,(0, %', 0(*,0()n se.es as, 61, %0,%1 !ee also #lan; 5escent groups Gro>ing and feeding, distinguished, )0&,)0$, )(',)(*, )&0,)&1, )$1 Gro>th, ))*, )(',)(%, )&', 0%0n characteristics of, ))0 of clans, )((,)(6 and encompassment, *)', ))%, 0)0,000 as e.change, *%$ female, &1,&6, *)(, )1$,)(*

and identification, *6( male, (1, $$,*'' Melanesian concept of, )'%,)*$ passim of plants and children DGimiE **0,**1, DPaielaE **6,**$ passim, 0%%n unmediated, *&) !ee also -lo> 7 7agen DWestern 7ighlandsE, **, 1$, (&, 6&, *)1, *)(, *06, *1(, ))', )%), )%0, )$', )$%, 0'*, 006,00% ceremonial e.change and transformation of domestic relations, *($,*6(, )6(,)66 clanship, )(*, )(),)6' di"ision of labor, *1&,*(* domesticity, &&,$) e.ploitation of labor, *(),*($ passim Ain,based e.changes, )6*,)66 male collecti"e life, 11 marriage e.change, ))$ migrants and prestige, %%,%$, $* mo.a relations, *%$, *$$,)'% spirit cult, *&6, )(), )61, 01&n, 0($,06'n, 0%%n >omen and public "alues, &%,$) 7ighlands, Papua /e> Guinea, 1, 10ff e.plored, 1$ 7istory, 01*, 01%n !ee also Time 7olism Dand holistic analysisE, %, *1,*(, )', )1, 0$, (*, 6$, %(, &%, $6, *(%, 0)) !ee also Pluralism 7omology, *0, 0', 0* !ee also Microcosm 7omology, Melanesian: bet>een relations and persons, *0*, *%0 bet>een penis and man, 06'n bet>een mother and child, )0% 7omology, Western, bet>een society and persons, 0*, *0( 7omose.ual ritual, (

beha"ior, 0(1n partners, 0%0,0%1n DSambiaE (%,(&, )'&,)*$ 7orticultural economies, 1%, *1* 7ostility, bet>een se.es !ee Se.ual antagonism 7ua D+astern 7ighlandsE, *'(,*'%, 0($n, 0%6n 7unting and gathering economies, 1%, 060n 7usband,>ife relations !ee 5i"ision of labor 4 4atmul DMiddle SepiAE, %* 4dentity, se.ual: feminist "ie>s on, 6',6( passim as an issue, (6,(&, 0(1n as a Guestion of attributes, 61,6( Western concept of, ($,6', *'( 4longot, Philippines, 0*) 4mpro"isation !ee 4nno"ation 4ncomplete !ee #omplete,incomplete 4ncrement: in 7agen Mo.a, )'',)'% passim in relations, ))%, )6*, )66,)6%, )$0 4ndi"idual: body, *)* Melanesian concept of, )&) Dsee AgentE and society, 0, *),*(, )', )$, 00, 1$, (', 66,%', %6, $), )6$, )%*, 0)' Western agent as, *10, 0*0 Western person as, 6*, *0(, *10, *(%,*(&, *&(, 060,061n 4neGuality: in di"ision of labor, *(* bet>een e.change partners, *1(,*1%, )'6,)'%, ))0 bet>een men, 1$ !ee also +Guality 4nitiation ritual, 0, (, **, (0,(&, $), $&,*0) passim, )11,)1(, )66, )&(, 000

and gender identity, ($,6( and marriage e.change, ))(,))6 and puberty rites, 01&n !ee also -emale initiation; Male cult 4nno"ation, *&6, )%0, )&&, )$0 acts as, 0)% impro"isation as, *%1, *%( 4ntention, as unAno>able, **%,**$ passim, )6' !ee also Mind 4nternal !ee +.ternal 4nternal,e.ternal: relations, )(* states, *0) 4n"ention !ee #on"ention,in"ention page31*% Page 1*& 4G>aye DAnga,speaAersE, 0%$n 4rian =aya, 16, *%1 < <afe D+astern 7ighlandsE, 0($n <aulong D/e> ;ritainE, 0(*n <e>a DSouthern 7ighlandsE, *1$,*(*, )%&, 01&n, 06(n, 06&n, 0%6n <inship: analogic, )%& creation of, )*&,)*$, )6'ff relations, *)', )&) and relations of production, 061,06(n systems, ))&, 0*1 !ee also Transformation of Ainship <in,based, e.changes, 1%,1$, &6, *(6,*(% and non,Ain based e.changes, )6',)6% passim, 01', 0(%n, 060n Kitoum "aluables DMuyu>E, *$(,*$$, 0%'nn

<no>ledge: in feminist scholarship, ))ff and Melanesian idea of capacity, *'),*'0, *)&, )%*, )&&, 0)' Melanesian practices of, *'%,**$, *0), *%6,*%%, ))', )&&,)$&, 06*n and Western idea of e.planation, $$,*'), )6$, 0*$ Western practices of, *), *$,)*, )%, 0), *%6,*%%, *&&, 0*$ff, 0(*n Kula !ee #eremonial e.change <uma DWestern 7ighlandsE, 0%1n <>oma DSepiAE, 0(&n 9 9abor, concept of, *1), *6', 060nn, 06(n menFs control of >omenFs Dsee #ontrol, e.ploitationE 9acanian theory, 066n, 0&*n 9and, significance of D7agenE )(),)(( D<e>aE 06&n DMaringE 0%%n DSaE &',&* 9eadership: DGimiE **(,**6 DMaloE *'$,**' 9iberal feminism, )),1' passim 9ife,crisis ritual, 1%,1& !ee also <in,based e.changes 9ife force, 0%6n, 0%%n generali6ed, )&6,)&% as limited, )'&, 0&'n 9o>lands, "ersus 7ighlands, 16, 0%)n M Mae,+nga DWestern 7ighlandsE, (', 0()n, 06'n Magic, **6,**%, )'&, 0%*n, 0%%n Male !ee Same se. relations Male cult:

disappearance of, &),&6 passim in +astern 7ighlands, (0,(&, 0&0n D7agenE 01%,01&n nama DGahuAu GamaE 6(, 0(0n, DSaE &' problems in analysis of, $&,*') !ee also 4nitiation ritual Male domination, 01, 0(, (1,(% passim, 60, 61, %0, &*, $0, D5auloE &)ff D7agenE *16,*(* passim DSaE &) Male,female: and definition of gender, 6$, *&(, 0'$,0*', 0((n opposition, *(, %*, 0*& !ee also Se.ual antagonism Malo, ?anuatu, **$, *0*, *(0, 0($n types of Ano>ledge in, *'&,**' MandaA D/e> 4relandE, *&0, *&(, *$' Maring DWestern 7ighlandsE, )&$, 0%'n, 0%%n, 0&0n Marriage e.change !ee ;ride>ealth; +.change of >omen Mar., <arl, *6', *%%, )$0, 060nn, 061n, 06%n Mar.ist criticism, )(, )6, 60, 06)nn, 06%n Mar.ist,feminist perspecti"e, *0& ,Socialist feminism, )),1' passim Massim, Papua /e> Guinea, 11, 16, 0&0n Maternal, blood, e.pelled from males, )*1,)*( D5auloE )1$,)(' DGimiE )(' DSambiaE )*%,)*$, )0$ DTrobriandsE )0%,)0$ Maternity: creation of, ))6 D5auloE &1,&( Melanesian images of, **), 0'', 0*%, 00) DTrobriandE )0(ff

Western images of, &&,&$, $*, ))%, )0&, 0**, 0*1,0*&, 0&*n, 0&)n Matrilineal,patrilineal, Ainship systems, 11, *$*, ))%, 0&0n Measurement !ee #omparison Mediated e.change, *$),)'%, )0% defined, *%& Mediated,unmediated e.change, *%&,*%$, *&' relations, *$(, )6',)6*, )66,)6%, 0)',0)* Men: and domestic relations, $',$* eGuated >ith culture, (1,((, 60, 0**,0*) eGuated >ith society, %)ff, %1, %6, &6,&&, 0*%,0*& maAing boys into, (6, (&, 60, %', *'(, *)&,*)$, )'$ff, )*),)*0, 0)* Mendi DSouthern 7ighlandsE, 1$, *'), 00%, 066n, 0%%n MenFs house, *)6, 0&0n Menstruation: DGimiE **), **1, 0%6n, 0&0n images of, $$, *'6 and male bleeding, *)6,*)%, )1(,)1&, )&&, 0%6n DPaielaE **6,**% DSambiaE 0%(n Merina, Madagascar, &), *') Metaphor, in anthropological understanding, %*,%), )6$ , metonym as symbolic construction, *$6,*$% , page31*& Page 1*$ metonym D@roAai"aE )'),)'0, D7agenE )'1,)'6 passim !ee also 8oot metaphor Mianmin DMountain @AE, *%1 Microcosm: of relations, Melanesian person as, *(, *0*, *%6, )'&, )&*, 0') of society Dcon"entionsE, Western person as, 0*, *0(, *1* Migrants: D7agenE %%,%$, $* DSaE %$,&)

Mind: as component of person D7agenE, &$,$', )6*,)6) as detachable, )(0 effect of on others, *0*,*0), *$), *$& as intention2>ill, *6',*6( passim, )$%, 00&, 0%%n, 0%$n Misrecognition !ee #oncealment Models, in anthropological analysis, 61, %)ff, $6, 0(6n, 0(&n, 0&0n !ee also African models in /e> Guinea 7ighlands Mo.a !ee #eremonial e.change Money !ee #ash crops; Migrants; Wage labor Mortuary ceremony, *%0, *$*, )%*,)%), )$*,)$), 0%1,0%(n Mortuary payments, DTrobriandsE )00,)01 Mother !ee Maternity Mother,daughter, imagery for #o. meri groups, &0,&( Multiple: as di"idual, *0, *(, 01&,01$n identity, *($,*6( passim, *$$, )*), )0$,)1', )(), )6), )%0, )%1ff person, *($, *&(, )6), )%1, )&&, 0)*, 0)1, 006 Muyu> DWoodlarAE D/orthern MassimE: )'', )'*, )'0, )'(, )*(, ))$, )(*, 0%$n production and e.change in, *$0,*$$ and Trobriands, )0), 0%1n / /ature: problem of posed by >omen, (1,(&, 60,61, &), &&, $&,*0) passim, )11, 0*), 0*1,0*& Western concept of, 0',0), 00, 0(, 0('nn, 0(0nn, 06(n /ature,culture, 0, **, )', 1$, ((, &&,&$, $),$% passim, *01ff, *&6, 0(0n /dumba D+astern 7ighlandsE, 0*%,0*&, 0($n, 0&*n /e> ;ritain, Papua /e> Guinea, 11, 0%'n /e> #aledonia, )6&, )%* /on,agnates, problem of, (',(0, )((

/osebleeding, $$, **), )*1, 0($n /urture, Western image of, )0& of money: D5auloE &0,&(, D#hua"eE &6 !ee also -eeding relations; Gro>th @ @bJect !ee SubJect,obJect relations @bJectification: defined, *%6 GregoryFs use of term, *11 of no"ice in male initiation, )*0,)*1 by personification, *%%,*&' by reification, *&',*&) of relations, *6',*6*, *%*, *%0, *%6,*&), *$), 0*0,0*1 @men, *&*, )&$, 0'' F@ne manF, Fone >omanF, *1, )(6, )(%, )($,)6', )%% !ee also !nity @roAai"a D@ro Pro"inceE, )'),)'0, 0%6n @>nership: idioms of in #o. meri, &1,&(, 0%6n of products of labor, *0(, *1', 06%,06&n !ee also Property P Paiela DWestern 7ighlandsE, $0,$1, *'&, *)', *)0,*)( passim, *0', *&*, )0$, )1&, )(1, )66, )%%, )$$, 06'n, 0%%nn, 0&0n puberty ritual, **6,**$ Pair, relation of, *1, *)(, *&&,*&$, *$%, )1&, )(),)(0, )($,)6', )60, )$6, 0'0 Parthenogenesis, &(, **),**1, *)( Partible person, in Melanesian thought, *%&,*%$, *&(, *$),)'% passim, )'&, ))*, )(),)(0, 0)1 Particular,collecti"e relations !ee #ollecti"e,particular relations Particular relations, defined, 1$ Paternity: creation of, ))*, ))6

DGimiE )16, 0'', 0%(n DSambiaE )*', )*),)*0, )*(, )0$ DTrobriandE, )06,)1' Patriarchy, )$, 0$, 0*0, 0)0, 0('n Patrilineal,matrilineal: descent, (*,() Ainship systems, 11, *$*, ))%, ))& Pentecost 4sland, ?anuatu, %$ Perception, altered, ***,**), *6', *60, )1*, )10 !ee also Transformation Performance, *6', *%1, *&*, *&6, 0)1 and appearance of agent, )%%,)&' magic as, *%1, *%$ as presentation, *&$ as re"elation, )$6,)$% and >orA, *6' Person: distinguished from FagentF, )%0 in 7agen, &$,$) Melanesian concept of, *0, *0*,*0), *&),*&0 and product of >orA, *(%,*(& and thing, *01 Western concept of: as ha"ing FrightsF, *1) as indi"idual, (% as proprietor of the self, *0(,*06, *(%, 060,061n, 066,06%n !ee also Multiple person; Partible person Personification, *%*, *%%,*&', *&$, *$), *$$, ))', ))&, )1* of body, )'& de, page31*$ Page 1)' fined, *%% of pigs, )'' of FsocietyF, 0)0,0)1, 0)$

Pigs, *1$, *(', 06(n into food, *(6, )'' production of, *66, 0%6n transformed into >ealth, *()ff "alue of, *6),*60 Plants !ee Women, and gardens Plural,singular, *),*(, )%1,)%% Pluralism Dand pluralist analysisE, )1, )6, 0&,0$, 6$, %0, $6 !ee also 7olism Plurality: Melanesian concept of, *),*( in Western idea of society, *),*0, %6, 0*0 Political,domestic domains, 11, 1%,1$, 66,$% passim, 6&, %*,%), %),%0, %1, %6, &6,$), $1,$6, *(6,*(%, *66, )'1,)'(, )66, )&', 0(6n reanaly6ed, )&),)&& transformation bet>een, *($,*6( passim, *%), )&(,)&%, 0*$, 006,00% Pollution, female, (0, $*, *%$, )1(, )1& bet>een >omen and men, *'(,*'6 Postmodernism, )0, 0& Po>er: o"er an agent, )%1 as claims, $&,*0) passim debate o"er >omenFs, 1( and ideology in feminist critiGue, *00ff as indi"isible, )%&,)%$ relations bet>een men and >omen, 60, %(, &$, *'* !ee also #oercion; 5omination; -orce Prestige, 1&, *($ D7agenE 11, %%, &$, *$$,)'% passim, )(( DMuyu>E *$(,*$6 Producti"ity: as an act, *)1, ))0, )((, )$' symbols of, &(, *11, *%&, *&1, ))%, )6%, )$0,)$1 Property, *)%,*)&, *(%,*(& culture as, 0))ff

pri"ate, *0%,*6*, 06)n, 066n Western concepts of, *'0,*'% passim, *01,*06, *0%, 060n Puberty ritual !ee 4nitiation ritual Public,pri"ate !ee Political,domestic 8 8adical feminism, )),1' passim 8eciprocity: and critiGue, *16,*1%, *(',*(* in di"ision of labor, *1&, *6),*61 in domestic relations, %&, $',$* ideology of, *11 of perspecti"es Dsee +.change of perspecti"esE !ee also 5ependency 8egulation !ee #ontrol 8eification, *)*, *&',*&), *&%, *&$, *$), ))%, ))&, )1*, )11 defined, *%% 8eplication: defined, *&* of generali6ed capacity, )%$, )&1, )$) in reification, *)*, *&1, *&&, *$*,))1 passim, *$), )11, 0%6n 8epresentation of society, feminist critiGue of, 6(, %( 8eproduction, 61, *11, ))), 061n, 0&)n and non,reproduction, *&(,*&6 po>er of in shells, *%* !ee also #hildbirth 8e"elation, *6%, *%0, *%$, 0)' of in"ention, *$' as maAing capacity "isible, ))', )&',)&* DPaielaE **&, *)) of relations, *&&,*&$, )$',)$0, )&1, 0*% staged, **(, )$6,)$% !ee also #oncealment

8ights o"er oneself !ee #ontrol; Property 8oot metaphor, gift2commodity, *01, *%(, 0)) S Sabarl DSouthern MassimE, *%*, *%),*%0, *%1, *$*, )%',)%), )$), 06$nn Sacrifice, )(0, )61, 0($n, 06*n, 0%&n Sambia DAnga,speaAers, +astern 7ighlandsE, ($,6', $$, *&%, ))', ))*, ))6, ))%, )0', )0&, )0$, )10, )11,)(*, )61, )6(, )%0, )&*, )&&, )$$, 0'* initiation of boys, )'&,)*$ passim, 0(0nn, 0%0nn and se.ual antagonism, (6,(& Same se. relations, &(, &%, **(, *&1, *&(,*&%, *&&, )1',)1), )&% , cross se. relations, ))), )&%, )$&,)$$, 0)(, 00( defined, *&0 image of, *)*,*)( replication of, *$), *$$, )'), )'(,)'6, )'%ff, )*$ Sa,speaAers: male,female relations among, %$,&) ?anuatu, &%, *((, )(* Schismogenesis, 001,0(( Secrecy, *)*, )'1 and Ano>ledge practices: DGimiE **1,**(, DMaloE **' Self: idea of, $' as indi"idual subJect, )$1 as unitary agent, *(%,*(&, )%0,)%1, )%% Semen, transactions of, )'$, )*%, 0%0n DSambiaE )*6,)*% and >ealth, )'%,)'$ passim Separation, *)*, *)0, *%%,*&' through e.change, *$*,))1 passim as part of e.traction, )0' as process in personification, *%%,*%& SepiA area, 61, 0&0n SeGuencing, of acts, )10,)1(, )1%,)1&, )%%,)%$, )&*,)&) in particular relations, ))*, )6),)60, 0'*,0') Se.ual antagonism, in 7ighlands, (0ff, 60,61, $&, *00

debate o"er, (),(&, $0 Se.ual identity !ee 4dentity page31)' Page 1)* Se.,role model, of gender identity, ($,60, 61,6(, 6$, %'ff, *01, *&1 Siane D+astern 7ighlandsE, 0%(,0%6n, 0%6n Sight, as instrument of Ano>ledge: Melanesian, ***, **%,**&, )$), 0*% Western, 0*6, 00', 06*n Single se. construct !ee Same,se. relations Singular identity: creation of, *($,*6( passim Melanesian concept of, *),*( Singular,plural, *),*(, )%1,)%% Social construction, of gender !ee #ultural construction Social constructionism, $1,$6, **', 0)), 0(*n Social science, *$,)*, )),)0, %(, )6$, 0'$ Sociality, *', *0, $),$%, 0(%,0(&n and e.change relations, Western "ie> of, 66,6$, *$* immanent, *&& Dsee Alternation bet>een t>o types ofE Melanesian, *'),*'0, 0)'ff FmoreF and FlessF of, %1, &&,&$, 0(6n Western classification of, %(,%6 !ee also Transformation Sociali6ation, (%, %', *0(, )&&, 0*(, 0)*, 0(0n, 0(6n feminist theory of, 6',6* Western concept of, ($,60, $*,$), ))6 Society: as anthropological construct, *$* concept of in feminist scholarship, )0, )%, )$, 06,0% as integrating force, 66,%' as male collecti"e life, (), 0*& Western concept of, 0,1, $, 0',0), (1,((, %1, $1,$(, 0**,0*), 0*1, 0*&, 0)),0)1

!ee also 4ndi"idual and society Solidarity, male, (', (0, &) Source, identification >ith, **0, )(',)(*, )$1,)$% !ee also #ause SubJect, as agent, )6&,)%1 Melanesian definition of, )%), 00& SubJect,obJect relations, *$, *'$,**', *%*, 00*ff, 00&, 06&,06$n Substitution, *&1, *&&, )1' defined, *&) of particular relations DactsE, )%$, )&', )$*,)$), )$1,)$&, 001 in reproduction, ))&,)1' passim Support, Sabarl idea of, *%),*%0, 06$n Surplus product, *(6, *66,*6%, 06&n Symbolism, *%), *%1,*%(, *&*, )%*, )$&, 0(&n T Tee !ee #eremonial e.change Theft, by men of >omenFs po>ers, *'0,*'6, ***,**6 passim, *)% !ee also +.traction Things: made to appear, *&', )1* obJects as, *%$, ))0 persons as, ))%, )1', )(*, )6*, 0%1n !ee also 8eification Time: anticipated, )*$,))1, )($ in cause and effect seGuences, *)&, ))*, 0'',0'( and definition of e"ent, )%6,)&' in gift e.change, )*$,))0 passim in relations, )6),)60, )%* and types of sociality, )%*, )&',)&) !ee also SeGuencing Tolai D/e> ;ritainE, 0%'n Tombema +nga DWestern 7ighlandsE, 6%,6$, *(1,*((, *6*, 06(nn, 0%*,0%)n

Transactions, as creating FthingsF, *60, *%$ Transactor,transacted relation, *%%, ))), 00* Transformation, *0, *($,*6( passim, ))6, )$% defined, *($,*6' of Ainship, ))$,)0', )61, )&% bet>een singular,multiple, *6', *6(, *&( bet>een types of sociality, *($,*6( passim, *%), )&(,)&&, )$&,)$$ of "alue, *(), *($,*6(, ))*,))), ))6, )1',)1* of >orA, $',$*, *(6, *$0, *$( Trobriand 4slands D/orthern MassimE, **, *$6, )1',)10 passim, )(&, )6', )%0, )%%, )$$, 0(*n, 0%1n, 0%(nn production and e.change in, )0*,)1', 0%'nn Tubetube DSouthern MassimE, *%*, *%1, *$*, 0%'n ! !ncertainty, about cause and outcome, *%1, )&$, )$6, )$$, 0'* !nity: of action, )**, )*%, ))), )%(, )%6,)&', )&% of mind, )6), 0%%n, 0%$n, as specific creation, *(&,*($, *($,*6( passim, )6), )%%, )$6, 0)(, 066n !nmediated e.change, *$1, 0%&n defined, *%&,*%$ and effects of gro>th, )'%,)*$ passim bet>een siblings DTrobriandsE )01, )0(,)0%, )0&,)1', )10 !ee also Mediated,unmediated !s,them, fiction of !ee We,they ? ?anuatu, 16 !ee Malo; Sa,speaAers W Wahgi "alley, 1$, 0%$n Wage labor, %%, %$,&) page31)*

Page 1)) Warfare, 11, 1(, (0, **&, *%$ compensation, 0%1n disappearance of, (6, %%, &) We,they, fiction of, %, $, *6,*%, 0&, 0$, *06, *%), 0*', 01), 01&n, 01$n Wealth: appropriated from >orA, *(* concept of, 1& D7agenE *1&ff DMuyu>E *$1,*$( and prestige, *($ DSabarlE *%* DTrobriandsE )0),)00, 0%(n and >omen, &(, ))$, 0%1n Western,+astern 7ighlands, 16 compared, )6'ff Will !ee Mind Wiru DSouthern 7ighlandsE, 0%&nn, 0&'n *o. meri D>omenFs enterpriseE D5aulo, #hua"eE, &0,&(, &6, $%, **(, )1$, )$', 0(%nn, 0%6n Wola DSouthern 7ighlandsE, 66,6%, 0((n Women: and FdomesticityF, %0,%1, %(, %%, &&,$), *0', )&0, 0** eGuated >ith FsocietyF, %6,&6, &%,&& and gardens, *1&, *61,*6(, )0%, )1),)10, )(', )(),)(1, 0%(n, 0%6n, 0%%n and FnatureF, &&,&$, $&,*'', )11, 0*), 0*1,0*&, 0(0nn, 0&*n as FobJectsF, )0*, 0**,0*1, 00',00*, 0%0n, 0&*n FproblemF of, )$,0(, (*,(0, (6, ($,6' as Fsocial actorsF, 6), %', %1, &6,&&, *(1, 0*0 WomenFs house, 06'n, 0&0n WorA: as producing FrelationsF, *6', *60, *%%, *%$, 0%(n and product, relationship bet>een, *0$,*10, *1%, *(',*($ passim, 060nn as purposi"e acti"ity, *6',*6( passim, *%$, 06&n transformed, $',$*, *(6, *6', *6),*6(, *$0, *$(, )0*,)0(, 066n !ee also 9abor

$ote: 9ocations in Papua /e> Guinea are in some cases designated by geopolitical or linguistic region rather than by pro"ince page31))