Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Ethnologist.
http://www.jstor.org
comments and reflections
Perhaps the most relevant to the current interest in subaltern inversions of the culture of
dominance, especially insofar as these inversions represent a politics of identity, are
Levi-Strauss's remarks on the phenomenology of the process: on the development of
self-consciousness through the apprehension of the other as opposition. Consider this
Hegelian passage, again at the end of the Mythologiques:
The problem of the genesis of myth is inseparable, then, from that of thought itself, the constitutive
experience of which is not that of an opposition between the self and the other, but of the other
apprehended as opposition. In the absence of this intrinsic property-the only one, it is true to say, that
is absolutely given-no act of consciousness constitutive of the self would be possible. Being, were it not
apprehensible as a relationship, would be equivalent to nothingness. The conditions which allow the
emergence of myth are therefore the same as those of all thought, since thought itself cannot be other
than thought about an object, and since an object, however starklyand simply it is conceived, is an object
only in so far as it constitutes the subject as subject, and consciousness itself as the consciousness of a
relationship. [Levi-Strauss1990(1971 ):603-604]
And compare Thomas:
I insist that self-representation never takes place in isolation and that it is frequently oppositional or
reactive: the idea of a community cannot exist in the absence of some externality or difference, and
identities and traditions are often not simply different from but constituted in opposition to others.
11992a:21 31
Many of Thomas's writings show his agreement with the classic structural principle that
the self is constructed in a relation of opposition to the other. But when he chooses not to
link his original theoretical insights with the pendant ideas of the anthropological old-timers,
the effect could be an intellectual loss all the way around. There is, for example, a certain
parallel between the received notions of "equilibrium" in the older discussions of intercul-
And, if one may judge by the repetitionsof the argumentelsewhere, the moraldrawnfrom
Thomas's pseudohistory of kerekere is on its way to becoming a scholarly tradition:
Ironically, as Thomas (n.d.) has pointed out, anthropologists seeking to discern "authentic" cultural
traditions and to filter out exogenous elements are prone to attributeto the "ethnographic present" (their
own mythical construction) patterns of life derivative of, shaped by, or transformed radically in reaction
against colonial influence. IKeesing 1989:28-29; "Thomas (n.d.)" refers to a prepublication version of
Thomas 1992b]
Thomas's positive story is that the recognition of kerekere was in the first place, and to
some extent, a product of the "communal system" foisted on Fiji by the first colonial
governor, Sir Arthur Gordon. Communalism included the corporate ownership of land by
mataqali, or clan units, an arrangement that from 1880 onward the government attempted
to discover in local society withoutmuch success, and after1913 decided simplyto impose.
However, if such communalism encouraged the give-and-take of kerekere, it was not, in
Thomas's view, the main historical reason for kerekere's objectification. The main reason
was the later colonial policy and sentiment that turned against the communal system and
saw in kerekere a barrier to Fijian commercial enterprise. "The meaning of kerekere as a
substantivized practice," Thomas observes, "derived largely from the fact that it was the target
of policies that sought to foster individualism and dismantle the communal social order"
(1992b:72). But now he is speaking of a time well beyond the 1860s and into the 20th
century, the great opening salvo of the attack on kerekere and related practices being the
aforementioned 1896 report on the decrease of the native population. There followed the
attempts to abolish kerekere through decrees of district and provincial councils and-through
agitation in the government-sponsored gazette Na Mata-the formation in 1905 of an
anti-kerekere league (which lasted a few years). Even as late as Hocart's time in Fiji
(1909-13), according to Thomas, the "recognition" of kerekere was only "inchoate and
partial" (1992a:223). So what Thomas is saying is that kerekere achieved a determinate
neotraditional form as an emblematic custom around the second decade of the 20th century.
If it was then described by ethnographers as a "way of life," this was
In actuality, kerekere was both objectified and recognized as a distinctively Fijian custom
well before the colonial period (let alone the early 1900s). As early as 1835, it appears in
the characteristic phrase kerekere vakaviti (kerekere in the Fijian manner). It is recorded in
the substantive or nominalized form in several dictionaries of the precolonial period, and
thus was a named practice. Moreover, kerekere is described in early historical texts in the
same terms as in recent ethnographic monographs: it has the same attributes-which could
not be expected if its value were determined by opposition to the colonial order rather than
by relationships in the Fijian order. To show these points, to determine what is at issue, I
need first to rehearse a lengthy (though still abridged) excerpt of the modern ethnographic
description of kerekere singled out by Thomas:
Kerekere is the prevailing form of economic transaction among kinsmen as individuals.... [I]tis a form
of reciprocity.... It is not restrictedto special occasions, but occurs daily and constantly. More goods
change hands through kerekere than through any other form of distribution, excepting familial pool-
ing ...
Kerekereis most emphatically not "begging," which is the usual translation of the term. "Begging"...
obscures the essential kinship ethic, the implied reciprocity....
The word kerekere has the generic meaning of a request. The transitive verb from which it is derived,
kerea, means "to request." In its generic meaning, the verb can be used in non-economic contexts ...
[and] thus a man may "request" (kerea) permission of his chief to leave his village for a trip. But in
economic contexts the general meaning of kerea is: to solicit a good, resource, or service, or the use of
a good or resource. Almost anything or any type of use-right can be solicited through kerekere.One may
ask for possession of food of any sort, mats, tapa cloth, canoes, whale's teeth, cotton cloth, tobacco,
money, pigs, chickens-in short, practically the entire inventory of material culture....
Kinship between donor and recipient is an indicative characteristic of kerekere .... [But] kinship can
always be widely extended through classificatory devices.... The avenues of kerekere [are]open to just
about anyone a person meets. The significance of kinship for kerekere is that kin ethics, the obligation to
give support, aid, and comfort, dominate the transaction....
A second, complementary characteristic is that the request should be engendered by a genuine need
(leqa). Moalans referdespicably to "greed"or "covetousness" as kocokoco, and to kerekerewithout need
is kocokoco, which is extremely reprehensible....
A request normally begins something like this: "A request here, my kinsman. Be of good heart: I am in
need." By the same token, the most legitimate reason for refusal-except lack of the thing desired-is that
in acquiescing the donor would place himself in need....
Requests for use may be distinguished from requests for possession .... If the employment of a
productive good or a resource yields direct returnto the solicitor, a small part of that should be given to
the donor when the item is returned....
The typical form of kerekere is not borrowing, however, but request for full possession. ... There is no
necessary understandingthat the person receiving goods will returntheir equivalent on his own initiative.
What is implied is that the recipient is ... made more accessible than otherwise to a future request by
the donor....
There may be a continuous series of one-way transactions from haves to have-nots. ...
Another form of kerekere is one in which the request is ... initiated by a presentation of something
valuable to the potential donor....
Traditionally,two goods have been used to initiatesuch "serious"kerekere:whale's teeth and kava....
Kerekere which involves an initial presentation is, however, vulnerable to influence by market
transactions. Such kerekere seemed to me to sometimes take on an ambiguous character.... [M]oney
itself may become the initialgift. Buyingand selling (volitaka)is not "custom of the land."On the contrary,
it remains bad form within the community, particularlyfor close relatives....
Another, very critical aspect of kerekere etiquette is the overtones of rank and prestige. To solicit an
object... is to admit weakness; by the same token, to honor a kerekere is to show "strength"(kaukauwa),
productive ability.... In entering a house to make a request a person typically remains near the door,
the position of least honor, while the owner of the house, the potential donor, sits rearcenter in the place
of greatest honor....
A fundamental implication of this status display is that a series of one-way transactions tends generally
to elevate the donor over the receiver.... At the level of the community, ... the amount of goods given
through kerekere generally increases in proportion to hereditary status.... [C]hiefs are expected to give
aid to those in need, and in doing so the superordinate chiefly social position is sustained. The familial
metaphor is sometimes used: the chief is "father"of his people, and he should care for them.... [The
chiefly requisiting of goods, /a, is differentfrom kerekere.]
From the same period is a notice of "CeryCery," glossed as "Beg," in the 1833-36 papers of
the ship Emerald; it is part of a word list compiled by the well-known beche-de-mer trader
J. H. Eagleston (cited in Geraghty 1978:67). The orthography and other evidence suggest that
Eagleston's notice was provided by his colleague Warren Osborn (see below). Another version
of the Cargill entry was published in the "Vitian Dictionary" of Horatio Hale, who was in Fiji
with the U.S. ExploringExpedition in 1840 (Hale 196811846]:396); and what may very well be
still another is in the manuscript dictionary and grammar in the hand of John Hunt, written in
1839 (Hunt 1839).5 By Hazelwood's time (1850), the relevant entry had become rather
complex, including not only the nominalized form for the request but another for the returnon
something requested for use (the latter also found in modern practice):
Kere-av. tr. to beg; ask for.
Kere, Kerekere,v. intr.of the above:
n. petition, request.
Kere vosa, to urge or incite a man to speak.
ai Kere, n. a thing given for the use of a thing
begged; the interest. [Hazelwood 1850:54]
The 1854 Fijian-Frenchmanuscript dictionary from the Catholic mission at Rewa-written by
Pere C. Mathieu or Pere P. Michel-evidently takes its kerekere entries from Hazelwood, albeit
"demander une chose" seems not so pejorative a gloss as "to beg" (MaristMission 1854).
I call attention to the substantivization in these early notices of kerekere, particularly the
noun for "request" produced by reduplication of the root. Preceded by the common article
(na/a), kerekere thus designates (pace Thomas) a kind or class of acts, which is also to say,
"an entity separable from particular enactments" (Thomas 1992b:64). Modified by adjec-
tives, the object of verbs, and so on, kerekere then becomes subject to judgments: in principle
it is manipulable in thought and deed. It was perfectly possible in precolonial times to say
"kerekere is bad" (e ca na kerekere), for example; or "kerekere is tabu" (sa tabu na kerekere).
And note that the latter phrase, when spoken in the performative mode, directly manipulates
the practice. One might also speak of kerekere as a specifically Fijian custom: kerekere
vakaviti (kerekere in the Fijian manner). This expression, kerekere vakaviti, appears in direct
Hunt's missionary colleague R. B. Lyth-who, Thomas says, does not mention kerekere in
his extensive writings-gives us some additionalunderstandingof why high-rankingchiefs
were so importuningof their Europeanvisitors.It is because the chiefs had to give things
freelyto theirown people, as has been reportedin connection with the modernpracticeof
kerekere.Lyththus speaks of the considerablebegging of Tuikilakila(Tui'ila'ila),son of the
paramountof the Cakaudrovekingdomand himselfthe second, or active, ruler:"Hischief
object in begging is to give away to some one or other of his people or visitors.All Fijian
transactionsaredone by interchangeof presents,and by givingfreelya chief keeps in favour
Obviously, finer analytic distinctions could be made; yet as it stands the typology can
provide a fair description of the status of kerekere before the establishment of the colony
(1874) and can even afford some suggestions about its later history. As indicated, kerekere
was at least reified in the precolonial period as contrastively Fijian-"Cery Cery fucka-
bede"-which also means that it was already recognized as an entity and as a habitual
practice. It likewise becomes clear that, in speaking of objectification, Thomas is singling
out the particular subspecies thereof which is epitomizing or essentializing, and he is reading
its development as the historical origin of objectification in every shape and form. Having
presumed that the essentializing move was historically decisive, Thomas by this argument
made it seem that objectification in all its modalities followed in consequence. And note that
whatever problems this thesis may encounter in the historical record, it is perfectly logical
insofar as essentialism is a specialized form of objectification and necessarily entails the
characteristics of the general class. But then something more is put at stake by Thomas's
thesis than whether or not kerekere can be attested as old Fijian custom. Also at stake is how
one explicates the colonial process of epitomization, and how the Fijian role in it is
perceived.
Collapsing objectification into epitomization, Thomas makes Fijian consciousness of
kerekere a reflex of British determinations. He says this clearly enough and in the form of
We are now in the colonial period. The line taken earlierby Calvert,that kerekerewas
the economic ruinof Fijians,preventingthe accumulationof wealth by distributingit from
the haves to the have-nots,had a brilliantcareer in colonial ideology. It played notably as
the theme of an intense anti-kerekerecampaignthat began about 1897 and lasted another
10 to 15 years.The campaignwas encouragedby two governors,Sir GeorgeT. M. O'Brien
and Sir Everardim Thurn, who were bent on reversingthe Fijian "communalsystem"
invented by Sir ArthurGordon. Convinced that the Fijianswere dying out, im Thurnhad
even biggerplansthan the developmentof Fijian"individualism": namely,the alienationof
Fijianlands(France1969; Macnaught1982). Hence at the turnof the century,the agitation
againstpracticessuch as kerekerebecame feverish,includingmoves to legally abolish the
practice.CertainFijiansnow formedan anti-kerekereleague, publishingtheirnames in the
The manuscript version ends with a brief paragraph omitted from the printed monograph:
In a society which is not only ignorantof all trade,but positivelydislikesit, beggingand ceremonial
exchanges,bothdiscountenancedby thegovernment,aretheonly meansbywhichpropertycan change
hands.[n.d.:129]
In between, both versions include a long citation of the defense of kerekere in Na Mata by
Vakatudaliga, who had no uncertainty about the nature of the custom. Neither had Hocart.
* * *
notes
references cited
Bateson, Gregory
1935 Culture Contact and Schismogenesis. Man (n.s.) 35:178-183.
Cabral, Amilcar
1973 Returnto the Source: Selected Speeches by Amilcar Cabral. New York:Monthly Review Press.
Capell, Arthur
1973 A New Fijian Dictionary. FourthEdition.Suva: Government Printer.
Cargill, David, et al.
c.1 839 Fijian Dictionary. MS, photocopy in the files of Paul Geraghty (original housed as A 2065 in the
Mitchell Library,Sydney).
Cata Na Kerekere
1905 Ai suani Vola: A Kerekerekei na Veivulagiti. Na Mata, January:11-12.
Clammer, John R.
1973 Colonialism and the Perception of Traditionin Fiji. In Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter.
T. Asad, ed. Pp. 199-220. London: Ithaca Press.
Comaroff, John L.
1989 Images of Empire, Contests of Conscience: Models of Colonial Domination in South Africa.
American Ethnologist 16:661-685.
Eagleston, John H.
1831-36 Ups and Downs through Life.MS, Peabody Museum, Salem, MA.
France, Peter
1969 The Charterof the Land:Custom and Colonization in Fiji.Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Geraghty, Paul
1978 Fijian Dialect Diversity and Foreigner Talk: The Evidence of Missionary Manuscripts. In Fijian
Language Studies: Borrowing and Pidginization. Bulletin of the FijiMuseum No. 4. A. Schitz, ed. Pp.
51-67. Suva: FijiMuseum.
Godelier, Maurice
1991 Is the West the Model for Humankind?The Baruya of New Guinea between Change and Decay.
InternationalSocial Science Journal 128:387-399.