The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity Author(s): Jonathan Friedman Source: American Anthropologist,

New Series, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 837-859 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/680224 Accessed: 30/06/2009 12:57
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 organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. 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 Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

JONATHAN FRIEDMAN
University ofLund

The Pastin the Future: Historyand the Politics of Identity

Identifying the Past

THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION CONCERNS the relationbetweenthe practiceof identity

1 as a process and the constitutionof meaningfulworlds, specificallyof historical schemes.Self-definition does not occurin a vacuum,but in a worldalreadydefined.As suchit invariably fragments the largeridentityspaceof whichits subjects werepreviously a part.This is as trueof individualsubjectsas of societiesor of any collectiveactors.The construction of a past in such terms is a projectthat selectivelyorganizesevents in a relation of continuity witha contemporary subject,therebycreatingan appropriated representation of a life leadingup to the present,that is, a life historyfashionedin the act of self-definition. Identity,here,is decisivelya questionof empowerment. The peoplewithout historyin this view are the peoplewho have been preventedfromidentifyingthemselvesforothers.Similarly, the currentchallengeto Westernidentityand historyand the rapidincreasein alternative,ethnic, and subnationalidentitiesis an expressionof the deterioration of the conditions thatempowered a dominantmodernist identity.The latter entailsthe liberation offormerly encompassed or superseded identities.I shallbe arguing that the dehegemonization of the Western-dominated worldis simultaneously its dehomogenization. In thisarticleI presenttwo kindsof argument. The firstconcernsthe generalrelations betweenidentityand the politicsof historical construction. The secondconcernsthe currentsituationof contestedrepresentations of otherpeoples'realities.The overriding argumentis that culturalrealitiesare alwaysproducedin specificsociohistorical contexts and that it is necessaryto accountfor the processesthat generatethosecontextsin order to accountfor the natureof both the practiceof identityand the production of historical schemes.This includesthe identifications "invented" by anthropologists as well as those of the subjectsthat we engage"out there."I argue,further,that the processesthat generate the contextsin which identity is practicedconstitutea global arena of potential identityformation.This arena is informedby the interactionbetweenlocally specific practices of selfhoodand the dynamicsof globalpositioning. Positioning the Self and Constructing the Past Makinghistoryis a way of producing identityinsofaras it producesa relationbetween thatwhichsupposedly occurred in the past and the presentstateof affairs. The constructionof a historyis the construction of a meaningful universeof eventsand narratives for an individual or collectivelydefinedsubject.And since the motivationof this processof construction emanatesfroma subjectinhabitinga specificsocialworld,we may say that historyis an imprinting of the presentonto the past. In this sense, all historyincluding modernhistoriography is mythology.A centralthemeof this discussioncenterson the inevitableconfrontation between Westernintellectualpracticesof truth-valuehistory and the practices of socialgroupsor movements constructing themselves by makinghistory.The latteris by no meansa unitaryor homogeneous process,sinceit dependsupon the ways in whichagentsare situatedin a largersocial context.The followingcontrast betweenGreekand Hawaiianculturalidentification is an exploration of the parameters
American Anthropologist 94(4) :837459. Copyright <) 1992, American Anthropological Association.

837

838

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOCIST

[94, 1992

of thisproeess,one thatattemptsto linkthe praeticeof self-identification in specifiesoeial eonditions to the way in whiehthe past is activelyeonstituted. The PastintothePresent: The Formation of Greek Identity Greekidentityseemsto interestanthropologists of ethniceonstruetion, becauseit is so elearlya reeent constructwhose continuitycan be easily questioned(Herzfeld1987). Greek identityhas, sincethe formation of the Greeknationbeginning in the 18thcentury, been represented as trulyancient.But this representation is a Europeanrepresentation datingfromthe Renaissance, that is, the revivalof Western"roots"in classicalcivilization in whichancientGreeceplayeda centralrole as the sourceof philosophy,science, liberty,and democracy, which,in theirturn,becameideologiealhallmarks of the emergence of modernEuropeansociety. Now, while many recentdiscussionsare intent on deconstructing Greek national identity, there has not been an equivalentinterest in graspingthe socialcontextin whichit occurredand which madeit a possibility. In the classiealperiod,to whichmostdiscussionsharkback,therewas no clearGreek identityin general,sincethe latterwasfocusedon individual city-states. Therewas, however, a distinctionbetweenpeople and state, betweenethnos and kratos, which played a significant role in politicalphilosophy.The notionof a Greekpaideia, a body of cultural knowledge, appeared veryclearlyin the Hellenisticperiod,in whichthe notionof culture as distinctfrompeopleseemsalso to have emerged.In otherwords,thereare interesting parallelsbetweenthe self-representations of Classicaland HellenisticGreekcivilization andthatof earlyEuropean modernity. The argument that therewas no Greekidentityis a grossexaggeration, but thereis ampleevidenceof a violentdiscontinuity that ensued uponthe Romanexpansion,the establishment of Byzantium,and the followingimplantationof Ottomanrule. In this period,Greekidentityappearsto have disappearedCertainly,Greeksocietymoreor less disappeared into a numberof imperialstructures that transformed boththe demographie composition andpoliticalformsof the soeietiesof geographieal Greeee.The Greekeeonomyalreadyhadcollapsedduringthe periodof Roman expansion, and was incorporated into that empire.With the declineof the latter,the establishment of a ChristianEasternEmpirereorganized muchof the region.Greekcame to referto heathen,or non-Christian, and was thus low-ranked. The term Roman was extendedto all of the ChristianMediterranean and the East was no different in this respect. The termRomoioi was the term used to identifythese populations.And this may not havebeena contradiction with respectto someolderethnicidentity,simplybecause the olderethnicidentitywas not ethnicin the modernWesternsense, that is, definedin termsof bloodor substance.Thus it is not at all clear to what extent this is a transformationof ethnicityin a deepersense. In orderto pursuesuch questionsone wouldhave to gain a deeperunderstanding of the natureof culturalidentityin this time and place. In termsof classifications imputedby state classesand eulturalelites of empires,the Mediterranean was reidentified in this period,and the termsof the identifieation tookon different values.Roman came to referessentiallyto the Byzantinerealm,to a Christian worldand religiousorder.Greek still existedas a categorybut now referred to the state of paganism,that whieh was marginalto Christiancivilization.This transformation was operated by the triumphof a state-based Christian order.In folktales of the period,Hellenesare represented as mythiealfigures,a formerracethat was extinguished by God as punishment forits arroganee (Miehas 1977:20). Herea cleardiseontinuity is established in loeal diseourse.With the OttomanEmpire'sadvent,the divisionbetweenIslam and Christendom beeameorganizedinto a quasi-ethniedifferentiation institutedby the regionalstructure of the empireitself,all in a situationin whiehChristianity had spreadto such an extentthat all Greekswere Romoioi.Simultaneously thereemergedan oppositionbetweenthe EasternandWesternchurches, in whichOrthodoxy represented "true" Christianity and the Westrepresented the spaceof hereticsand "sehismatics," the territoriesof the Franksand Latins, an oppositionthat becameinstitutionalized under the Ottomans:

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FORUM

839

Whatmustbe appreciated hereis thefactthatthe theological disputeswhichhadalwaysexisted betweenthe Eastern Churchand the Churchof Romeassumeda totallynew significance as the resultof the changesbroughtabout with regardto the redefinition of the role of the Church followingthe Ottomanconquest:What were beforetheologicalarguments were now elevated into "national differences." [Michas1977:20]

It has beenarguedthatthe nationalization of EasternOrthodoxy was the only possible basisfor a Greekidentityin the Ottomansystem,one that opposeditselfas muchif not moreto WesternCatholicismthan to Islam (Michas 1977:21).But, it might also be argued that the veryorganization of the empirerestedon the divisioninto territorial units basedprimarily on religiousclassification. The millet-Rum, the "RomanMillet,"all the Empire'sOrthodoxChristiansubjectsare given millet bashi, or "ethnarch." Uust 1989:78] Thiskindof "ethnicity" is, as I havearguedelsewhere (Friedman 1991 b), of a different orderthan that typicalof Westernmodernity.The latteris situatedin the body as the vehicleor container of identity.One belongsto a groupbecauseone is a bearerof a substancecommonto othermembers,irrespective of how one lives. This is a matrixfor the modelof racialidentity,one that, in fact, had little to do with biologybeforethe 20th century.The ethnicityof the empireis associatedwith externallydefinedproperties of sociallife, territory, corporateness, religion commonpracticescementedby a political organization thatdefinesthe regionas a segmentof a largertotality.Thus the populations of Greecetendedto identifythemselves as Christiani, equivalentto the religious-political categoryRomii, harkingfrom the Byzantinecontinuitywith Rome. Their language,in factdemoticGreek,was calledRomaiki. The emergence of Greeknationalityappearedin oppositionto this Romoioiidentity. This was itself a productof the integrationof the geographical area of Greeceinto the expandingEuropean worldeconomy(Michas 1977).While this is realizedimplicitlyin otherdiscussions,it has not been understood in systemicterms.The positioningof the mirrors in this complexprocessof identification is as follows: 1. The riseof WesternEuropeto a hegemonicpositionin the largerworldinvolveda greatdeal of self-identification and redefinition of the largerworld.Historically,the Renaissance playeda significant rolein raisingthe statusof Europeto that of a civilization whoseroots lay in the ancientworld, ultimatelyGreece.ThroughoutEuropeandevelopment,Greecewas increasingly incorporated into an emergentEuropeanidentityas a legitimate ancestorand the oppositeof everything Oriental.This was a Europeof sciencen progress, democracy, and commerce, all of whichcouldbe tracedas if they werea set of racial attributes to classicalGreece.Thesewerethe signsof modernity and wereopposedto the DarkEmpireof the East. Mysticism, stasis,despotism, and stiflingtrtbute are used to characterizethe latter.ClassicalGreece,then, is a crucialaspectof the emergentidentityof Europe. 2. In the 17th century,Greecebecameincreasingly integrated as a periphery into the expandingeconomyof Europe,expressedprimarily in the development of cotton plantationsin the southernzone. This was part of a generalshift of commerce fromEast to Westin whichFrancewas the majorpartner,accountingfor 50% of the total trade. In the 18thcentury,olive plantationsdevelopedin the Peloponnesus as a majorsourcefor soap production in Marseilles.The returnsfor these raw materialsweregold and cloth fromLyons,and coffee.In this relation,the risingGreekmerchant class in the Ottoman Empirebeganto populatethe commercial capitalsof WesternEurope.This was feasible becausethe Greeksas Romii merchantswere an institutionalcategoryin the imperial structure. But the consequences of their movementin this historicalconjuncture were incompatible withthe simplereproduction of the empire.In WesternEuropetheseRomii becameacquaintedwith the image of themselvesas descendantsof the foundingcivilizationof the Occident.The emergence of neo-Hellenistic nationalism is thus the embodimentof the European visionof classicalGreeceamonga new peripheral elite.
corporate identityand placedunderthejurisdiction of the GreekPatriarch in Constantinople as

840

ANTHROPOLOG1ST AMERICAN

1992 [94,

of a nation3. The returnto the homelandof the new identityand the development a selfIslam, and opposedboth to EasternChristianity basedon neo-Hellenism, alism essence the of continuity the on whose identityis built Europeanmodernism fashioned Westernculturein the Greekpopulation.The nationalistmovementwas very much of fromthe West with the new ideals, and it was supported workof studentsreturning the of Greek movementtookthe formof the renaissance The philo-Hellenists. European by Throughfolklore. with and with the past,withlanguage, of continuity a practice history, Romiibabiesbecame the 18thcenturythe practiceof givingGreeknamesto newborn out Pericles,Themexample, for origin, classical of often most and the nameswere common, by a virtual Europe in accompanied was this And 1977:64). (Michas Xenophon istocles, of an midst the in of interestin things Greek a fantasyof classicalculture explosion Greodes, "Grecian bounds: no nature.The fashionfor all thingsGrecianknew elegant furniture" Grecian pictures, Grecian wings, cianplays, Grecian costumes, Grecian 1965:36). (Mango The positionof modernHellas was conceivedin termsof descentfrom the classical and collateralitywith modern Europe,from whence the Greeks received the period bearersof civilization(Michas Europeans, of theirtruedescentas primordial knowledge receivedfrom[them]our anHellenes of the glorious . "Wethe descendants 1977:6748) heritage"(Michas 1977:67). cient In orderto diffusethis identityto the population,makingit, for the first time, Greek of the newborn, wereemployed.Besidesthe rebaptizing the usualmechanisms national, and generaleducationplayeda centralrole. folklore
to Homer,bakedbarley It is knownthatin Homericantiquity. . . the basicfoodwas, according 1968:77] [Kyriakides bread. is people Greek the of food basic the today, flour.Corresponding

of Hellene as barbaricand heathen, now transformed The formerself-classification intothe ultimatein civilization,couldonly be accountedfor in termsof Easternoppression.

If only But if the Greekswere degraded,this was surelybecauseof tyrannyand superstition. Greeks they couldbe freedfromthe Turksand fromtheirown deplorableclergy. . . then the purityand virtue.[Mango1965:37] regainall theirancestral wouldimmediately

with the classicalperiod,and the latter's The practiceof Greekidentity,the continuity was the agendaof a risinghegemonic Western, especially and essenceas Indo-European the latter, it is suddenlybecoming of decline the in Today, world. larger the Europein is a productof the practiceof Westernself-identiclearthe extentto whichOrientalism ficationin a hegemonicspacewherethe otherwas silent. Even the holinessof Greekancestryhas comeinto questionin the workof Bernal( 1987),who has seriouslyquestioned originsof Greekcivilization.While even these latter-dayauthorslaborin the European certainthat thereis a connectionbetweenthe it is inescapably the nameof truth-value, of such worksand the dissolutionof Westernhegemonicidentity.A further clustering Third World scholarswho today, step is taken,of course,by those Western-educated of other formsof a afteryears of engagementin modernity,arguefor reestablishment . 1990) Stauth and Abaza (in and rulesof discourse production knowledge evolution. local a as understood be cannot identity of Greeknational The constitution regions which in arena an in identifications of interaction complex It is the resultof a in a result, a as and, with respectto one another were in a processof transformation recosmological the involved it As a macro-process processof internaltransformation. in integration-peripheralization its peninsula of the Greek of the population positioning its as area this identified which Europe, Western of economy the expandingpolity and to the peninsulait operateda was transferred ancestor.As this identification generalized of "Romans"into Greeksand the forgingof a historicalcontinuitybetransformation of the esand the imageof classicalGreeceas the embodiment tweenthese populations modernity. senceof European

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FORUM

841

Shouldwe all laugh at this as cynicalmodernanthropologists? Most of us find it difficultto do so. Others,the proudand freecynics,wouldinsist,no doubt,on the universal mystification of all nationalidentityexpressedin this kindof historicalprocess.I would point out that, in one sense, all identityis, as the cynics might also proclaim,no more thanthis. I wouldalso pointout that all of this historicalprocessis not a simplegame of namesand classifications, but a deeplycontext-bound processin which the real continuitiesare presentin the formof identitiesthat are construedin relationto people'simmediateconditionsand everydayexistences.The continuitythat makes the forgingof socialidentitypossibleis encompassed, here in no uncertainterms,in a global process thatlinksmajorsocioeconomic transformation to the constitution of culturesandnations to the reconfiguration of the map of the world'speoples. The Present intothePast:The Hawaiian Movement Hawaiimightnot appeara likelycandidatefora comparison with Greeknationalism, but, in its differing position,it does shed considerable light on the problemsunderconsideration here, the relationbetweenthe construction of identityand largerglobal processes.Hawaii,too, was integratedinto a largerimperialstructure, even if the termsof the integration wereconsiderably different and occurred duringa muchshorterperiodof time.European contactled initiallyto the consolidation of the islandsby meansof militaryaid by one particular paramount chief.Followingthe consolidation and centralization of powerjthe islandswere incorporated into the Pacificsandalwoodtrade, which totallydislocated thelocaleconomyby sendingoffmassesof commoners to the mountains to collectthe woodinsteadof producing food;at the sametime,chiefsassembledincreasinglyin theportof Honoluluto indulgethemselves in conspicuous consumption offoreign importsand mountingdebt, which ultimatelydrove them all into bankruptcy. Disease and economiccrisis,finally,drovethe Hawaiianpeopleinto abjectpovertyand disaster. Under the increasingcontrolof Americanmissionaries,Hawaii was graduallytransformed intoa colonial-puppet constitutional monarchy in conditions of catastrophic populationdecline,the growingwhale trade,experiments with sugarplantations,and a rising interestin transforming the islandsinto Americanproperty.The conversionof the islandsinto a sugar-based economyled by congregationalist missionaries providentially reoriented to the necessityof economicgain led to the disenfranchisement of the Hawaiianpopulation, theimportation of massivenumbers of Asianplantation workers, and, finally,the coup d'etat led by Americanresidentsthat overthrew the Hawaiianroyalty and rapidlyled to the integrationof the islands as a U.S. territory.Hawaiiansdisappearedfromthe culturalmap from the late l9th centuryup to the late 1960s,when a numberof global processesbegan to reversethemselvesand Hawaiiansbegan to come into theirown. Hawaiianhistoryin the l9th centurywas primarilythe workof missionary-trained Hawaiians andWhiteresidents.It consistedin the creation of a past set out in opposition to the Christian worldof modernity. This historyis whatwe mightidentifyas myth,and the genealogyof the chiefsand theirexploitsbecomesincreasingly detailedwhen combinedwith recentmemories of the courtof the last pre-Christian paramount,Kamehameha.In Westernterms,this is a workof folklore and folklorization whosecontoursdefine the demarcation of the traditional from the modern.Some of these able historians werealso engagedin socialdebate. Malo, for example,in newspaper articles,expressed his dismayoverthe powerof the Europeans in Hawaiiangovernment and society (Malo 1837,1839). While he was clearlyorientedto the modernand condemnedmuch of his owntradition, he also stressedthe technological achievements of his people.In the 1850s, whendiseasewas decimating a population thathad sunkfromperhaps800,000to 50,000 afterhalfa century,Malo expressedthe beginnings of a Hawaiianidentityin opposition to the dominantAmericanpresence,but one that was fragmented by its ambivalence to the waysof the Whites.Thereis no clearimageof a previously functioning socialtotality,

ANTEROPOLOGIST AMERICAN 842

the periodof the developsup through that clearprocessof self-definition is a there culture but practiceof Hawaiian practiceof overthrow. it couldto forbidthedeal further the what in did government wenta good popterritorial The new minority.And it to defineitselfas the trueHawaiian the among language and attempting by a Whitesettlerclass as identity Hawaiianstockare hereof the aboriginal and energiesfor born ulation. those only that his talents

[94, 1992

has obtained who spends impression red and the wrong A hereof whiteparents born were all red, or one man A parents his and life if Hawaiians. as true example the Hawaiian and is as true a good character Hawai'i own of their by benefit the country Oct. 2, 1880] Those who benefitthis SaturdayPost, white. other F.Judd, pureHawaiian [A. Hawaiians. true a rapidlydwindling the are into now (classified pessimisticstud-

doubleminority the subjectof numerous Hawaiian in marThe homesteads population)became providethemwith part-Hawaiian meto larger and and schemes music, in novels, amid scandalous savagestill appeared acculturation interof ies noble out. Numerous Whilethe imageof the were busy identifying areas. ginal themselves Hawaiians practice. byS representations, dia supplanted revealthis to be a common was increasingly Hawaiians older industry as with sugar views incorporated declining was Hawaii WorldWarII, the economy. the of Following staple whichbecamethe new democratsand theJapanese-American tourism, mass werenow totally Trade-union-based Hawaiians the unionin 1959. dominantin Hawaiianaffairs. state of tropical aof becameevermore paradiseof the Pacific,rife with simulacra luaus, population hotel in this multiethnic by Tahitiansand other islanders,staged in the Philmarginalized workshops a hula often performedof the gods Lonoand Ku from and marked fantasies, Hawaiians,lumpenized cruises,Hawaiianstatuettes imagery. moreespenight tourist of hotel laborforceand, andotherparaphernalia unskilled the of ippines, ranks the as a stigmaof class, filled the by recipients. welfare as the United States of pool mid-seventies a growing the in andJapan, cially, to stagnate frombothEurope a general competition touristindustrybegan The increasing Vietnam, in analyzedin termsof breakdefeat previously following have whole, we that and a consequent a steepdecline,a process in the worldeconomy entered the explosive accumulation movements, capital of student revival, a periodof decentralization was cultural This of the Hawaiian period has in Americanhegemony. the that also down was It a nationalistorganization of of Blackand Red power. identify, formation to advent the begun in thathas increasingly that has culminated process a froma localpopulation support increasing gained 1992a). elsewhere(Friedman as Hawaiian(Friedman reidentify, the Hawaiianmovement or of betweenthe recondevelopment relation on the I have discussedthe myselfhereto someremarks of the Hawaiianpast. 1992b),so I limit 1992a, reconstruction-repatriation the and societyand is rooted of Hawaiianidentityemergedis by oppositionto Western becamedominant stitution that has of the identitythatbetweenHawaiianlife formsand those the HawaiianpopuMuch since distinction a historical issue in culturalterms in marginsof a plantation life-and-death the a is into integrated the islands.This in thoroughly was Many, not least of whom state. decimation, 50th the following of lation, capitalism are no Hawaiians assumedthat there by have and then into the modern wholes, society in questof exotic and archivesand are suspiciouslyperplexed Univeranthropologists the are at . . . to the libraries learnyourHawaiian atall. They have gone (and "wheredid you can be foundamongurban,semiurban, continuity kind that of cultural signs theislands,is not the of Hawaiianculture throughout The continuity oppoenclaves sity"!). Western whoformnumerousthe touristshad in mind. The or or kingdom, andruralHawaiians, chiefdom anthropologists the paramount of"culture"either as pre-Cook Hawaii,an ancientcapesand all the itemsto be found a projandfeather sitiondefinesHawaii by Westernscholars, pondsand tarofields, withgrasshuts,fish Hawaiihas alreadybeenfolklorized native intellectuals.But numerous in the BishopMuseum. in this, has included as century past ect that, in the

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FORUM

843

thisis the pastdefinedand controlled by the West,the objectivepast.And forthe knowledgeable expert,modernHawaiiansas well as touristsimulacra are equallyunauthentic. This is so even for thosewho have been supportive of Hawaiianrights. The positionsof the mirrorsinvolvedin the recaptureof Hawaiianidentity by Hawaiiansexpressa relationof conflictoverthe rightto appropriate the past in the nameof contemporary 1C ieIltlty.
. .

Modernist versus Hawaiian Constrtlstions of Hawaiian Identity Fromthe modernistpoint of view, Hawaiiancultureis alreadydefinedacademically as the socialorderthat predatedcontactwith the British.This culturehas been written andfashioned throughout the l9th centuryand is enshrined in a numberof classicalvolumesand museumcollections. Hawaiian societydisintegrated andits population practically disappeared as a political realitywith its integration into the Americanhegemony.In such terms,Hawaiianculture,in its authenticity, ceasedto exist shortlyafterthe turnof the century. There is, thus, an absoluteand unbridgeable gap betweenmodernHawaiians'selfdesignated cultureand the trueculturethat they havelost. Theironly accessto this cultureis via the Westernand missionary Hawaiiantextsof the past, or the syntheticworks of modernanthropologists and/orarcheologists. The Hawaiianmovement harbors its own constructions of the past thatarefundamentallyat oddswith thoseof officialrepresentations. Whileforsomeit is a questionof reinstatingthe past,formostthereis an essentialcontinuitythathas beenincreasingly culled fromthemouthsofthe elders,kupunas, andwhichstressesthreefundamental relatedcomplexes: 1. Ohana is the extendedfamily,based on a principleof sharingand solidarity.Here thereis no exchange,since one gives oneselfto the others,and expectsthe othersto do likewise.This is a questionof the mergingof selvesin a largercollectivelife projectand not of balancedreciprocity. 2. Aloha is the principle of committing oneselftothe needsof othersandis the principle of organization of the ohana, but it can also be understood as a generalstrategyof personal relatedness. 3. Aloha ainaexpressesthe principlewhen appliedto the land. Love of the land is the relationof man to a sacrednatureupon whichhe is totallydependentand for which he has to care;the conceptof malama or caring,as in stewardship, is centralto aloha aina. 1 These complexesare instrumental aspectsof Hawaiianidentity today, and they are clearlycontinuous with what mightbe described as tendencies towardHawaiianclosedcorporateness that may have emergedin the l9th centuryand that might be accounted for as socialdefensemechanisms in face of an encroaching plantationsociety.Whether the ohana predatesthe colonialperiodis difficultto ascertain.It mightbe arguedthat this closedcorporate cultureis itselfgenerative of the principlesof sharing,love of the land, and extendedfamily,althoughI wouldarguefor a good deal morehistoricalcontinuity here. But this need not imply an oppositionbetweenpre- and postcontactHawaiians. Thesecomplexes weremoreprobablymerelyaccentuated and elaborated in the process of socialtransformation and reactionto crisisand oppression. They aredisauthenticated only by a discoursepredicatedon the oppositionbetweenpristineand colonial,just as potentas that betweentraditionaland modern.While academicsdiscuss the degreeto whichHawaiianchiefsweredespoticmurderers and are convincedthat Hawaiianmilitantshave an entirelyidyllic representation of theirpast (Linnekin1990:22),my experienceis that Hawaiiansare quite awareof the natureof chieflypower and regularly discussit amongthemselves.There are those who oppose chieflypoweras contraryto the idealsof ohana. Thereis a commonoppositionbetweengoodand bad chiefs,between thosewithandwithoutaloha. This is oftencombined with an opposition betweenpre-and postcontactHawaii, betweentraditionalchiefs and sellouts.The great chief Kameha-

844

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[94, 1992

mehais oftendepictedas eithera prototypical modernparamount or a moreambivalent figurewho shiedawayfromthe consequences of the encroaching Westernrealm. One indigenousreformulation of the Hawaiianpast consistsin the projection of the essenceof Hawaiiancultureonto the precontact period.This is combined with migration storiesto furtherdifferentiate Hawaiianhistoryin a way that accommodates the undenied fact that the Hawaii of the 18th centurywas not a simple expressionof the above principles or complexes.The originalsociety based on these principles,possessingno imagesofdeitiesandonly twogods,Hinaand Ku, andwhosechiefspracticed truealoha predatedthe firstinvasionfromKahiki, or Tahiti. The latter installedthe principlesof warfare, class power,and humansacrificeas well as numeroustiki,or imagesof gods. The successive onslaughtsof British,Americans, and nowJapaneseare reenactments of the samescenario.This is not a mereinvention,as some anthropologists and historians mightassume.The representation expresseswhat mightbe arguedto be a deepdivision in Hawaiiansocietythat may have existedin late precolonial times, if not earlier. It is worthcomparing the representation of the relationbetweenpeopleand rulersin Hawaiianmythologywith the similarstructuresthat are found in many other parts of the world.The mythof sovereignty basedon the invasionof foreign,youthfulchiefsfrom overseasor froma distantland is not an unusualphenomenon. The scenario,foundin WesternPolynesia,Fiji, Indonesia,and CentralAfrica,to name a few examples,contrastsan indigenous peopleruledby generousritualchiefsto conquering politicalchiefs who represent politico-magical powerand militaryviolenceand who are associatedwith externalrelations.In these lattercases the myth seems consistentlyto correspond to a polityorganizedin termsof exogamously rankedaristocracies, a relativelack of exploitationbetween lineages,and open exchangeof prestigegoodsbetweenranksconnectedby marriage. The Hawaiianelite of the late precontact periodwas, by contrast,highly endogamous,exploitative,and the adamantenemyof regularexchangebetweenranks.It is reasonable to supposethat the imageof the "stranger king"wouldembodya realconflictin such situations.The notionof sovereignty in WesternPolynesiawas basedon an alliancebetweenthe chiefs of the land, representatives of the people, and the foreign chiefsof the sea. This allianceis ambivalent, pittingthe encompassing ritualstatusof the "land"againstthe aggressiveconquering powerof the sea. In Hawaii, however,there wereno chiefsof the land and the people not, at least, in the late period.Rather,the warchiefsliterallyincorporated, by sacrifice,the eternawlly returning imageof Lono,god of the landand "people."If, forexample,the ritualof clliefship includesthe defeatof the sea chiefby representatives of the land in Fiji, the oppositeis the case in Hawaii. If, in the former,politicalpoweris encompassed by ritualstatus,in the latter,ritualstatus is incorporated into the beingof the politicalchief (Friedman1982, 1985).That Hawaiian societybecametrulyclass-divided as a resultof contactis evidentin numerous examples of real conflictand exploitation. Descriptions fromthe 1820srevealthe extentof aristocraticpowerin the postcontact situation.
Two thirdsfor the proceeds of any thinga nativebringsto the market,unlessby stealth,must be givento his chief;and not infrequently, the wholeis unhesitatingly takenfromhim.... The povertyof manyof the peopleis such that they seldomsecurea taste of animalfood, and live almostexclusively on taroand salt. A poormanof thisdescription, by somemeansobtainedthe possession of a pig, when too small to makea meal for his family.He secretedit at a distance fromhis houseand fed it till it had grownto a size sufficient to affordthe desiredrepast.It was thenkilled,andputintoan oven,withthesameprecaution of secrecy; butwhenalmostprepared forappetites, whettedby long anticipation to an exquisitekeenness, a caterer of the royalhousehold unhappilycame near,and, attractedto the spot by the savouryfumesof the bakingpile, deliberately tooka seat till the animalwas cooked,and thenboreoffthe promised banquetwithout ceremony or apology.[Stewart1830:151-152]

A famousrevelationof the last prophetof the kingdomKapihe announcesthe overturningof the Hawaiianpolity, the end of the kapus of the gods, the downfallof the ali'i and the rise of the maka'ainana, the commoners. This has been carriedover into current

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FORUM

845

Hawaiianidentityin an ofiicialstatementof the ProtectKaho'olaweOhana regarding the disputeover the military'srightto controland bomb the islandof Kaho'olawe.The opposition lives on in the currentHawaiiansituationand in the construction of the Hawaiianpast today. Interviewswith grass-roots membersof the movementreveala historicalvision that places paradisewell beforethe adventof the Europeans.In reference to the firstpriestto arrivefromKahiki,one militantproclaims:
He broughtthe ali'i, he broughtthe class system,he broughttikis(idols), he broughthuman sacrifice, separation of manandwoman,warandheiaus. He also brought godswho wereagainst Hawaiian gods. [interview,1985]

And in reference to Kamehameha's relationto the rebelliousdistrictof Ka'u on the islandof Hawaii:
Kamehameha neverconquered Ka'u. . . Neverwin thisplace. . . killhimif he comehere.Didn't likehim . . . he was a turkey.You no can say you arekingwithoutaloha. [interview,1985]

Now this is not evidencefor an Edenicvisionof a precolonial past, even if it is partof a strategyof oppositionbetweenthe Hawaiianand the Western.It is a moreelaborate illustration of a subalterndiscoursethat, I think,can be tracedbackward in time, one thatwasandis generated by a systematic classrelationship. The opposingof the complex of ohana and alohato the oppressionimposedby the projectsof dominantelites would appearto be a historically embeddedpracticeratherthan a mereinventionof the past decade. The construction of the Hawaiianpast by Hawaiiansis an aspect of a projectof delinkingfromthe largerworldthat has obliterated a populationand absorbedits history into the projectsof Westernacademichistoriansand anthropologists. While anthropologistsentertainan oppositionbetweena pristineprecolonial chieflysystemand a Western-imposed modernity,Hawaiiansconstruetheirhistoryas a seriesof usurpations by foreignconquerors opposedto the originalunityof love and generosity,"man"and naturethat characterized the pre-Tahitian era. And that originalunity is the core of their contemporary identity,the core of Hawaiiancommunity,and the antithesisof the negativereciprocity of modernity in whichthey are engulfed.
The Hawaiianstandsfirmlyin the present,with his backto the future,and his eyes fixedupon the past,seekinghistorical answersforpresent-day dilemmas.Suchan orientation is to the Hawaiianan eminently practicalone, for the futureis alwaysunknown whereasthe past is richin gloryand knowledge. [Kame'eleihiwa 1986:2>29]

Comparing Constructions ofIdentity In the Greekcase, a past definedby outsidersis used to forgea viableculturalidentity in the present.In the Hawaiiancase, the past definedby outsidersis denied,and a culturalidentityof the presentis employedto forgea viablepast. At one level this is simply a questionof positioning and strategy.The Greekelitewas working its way into the West and extricating itselffromthe OttomanEmpire.The Hawaiianmovementrepresents an attemptto extricateitselffromthe West and establisha self-centered autonomy.This is a difference betweena politicsof integration and a politicsof disintegration. WhileneoHellenismdiscoveredits identity in the gaze of the other, Hawaiiannationalistsseek theirswithin themselves,in reactionagainstthe other'sgaze. As a play of mirrors,the two strategieswould appearto be opposedto one another,the formerassimilatinganother'simageof its own past to becomewhatit is not, the latterprojecting whatit is onto a past whose image belongsto another.But, as I have stressed,this is not a game in opposition to reallife. It is deadlyserious,as mightpresumably have beendiscovered by a certain,perhapsmythical,Frenchpsychoanalyst who delightedin peeling away the identityof his patientsuntil they discovered,rightly,in the intellectualsense, that they werenonexistent andcommitted suicide.Notjust individuals, but populations have been knownto mysteriously eradicatethemselvesfromthe face of the earthafterlosing their ontological foundations. So this is not a questionof semiotics,of sign substitution, of the

ANTHROPOLOCIST AMERICAN
846

[94, 1992

a question authenticity.It is, rather, The museological project. and truth-value in a self-defining of game engagement intellectual of the subject's fromtodayto tomorrow. existential the authenticity aboutthe transition of always is past constituted authentically The Space of Modernity the of theirhistoriesdetails constructions disthe of Hawaiian and An importantaspect contrastbetweenGreek The of identityformation. and systemicpositionsof the kinds different between in the historical relation of Greeceinto an two cases is located incorporation the the of between aspect Greece an tinction was Greeknationalism values of which classical Western populations. separation modern two its of of a product West and into a worldidentitywassimultaneously expanding of the economic Greek reorganization ancestor. appointed the was one of global was of declining process period a The in theOttomanEmpire. Hawaiianidentityhas reemerged but is opfrom modernism of map of Europe. establishment the political in emergence and the participate in position,ideologically, culturalidentihegemony.It does not hada favored Western Greece previous many latter. eliminated entirelyto the and the posed that simultaneously of roots,"Dances-with-Wolves," to a era new aimperialsystem of alternatives In thiscurrent represent identities thefaceof the map. the cultural from ties represented emergent to have of collegecurricula, Greecemight be said If ethnification future. failed. the the past in that has apparently for manyto represent but modernism comparison come has interesting an Hawaii establish to proin the past, simply global future was not betweenlocal and for purposeof the contrast The an articulation a framework connection, connectionprovides a global systemic with same The suggest to dimension. of anthropologists The confrontation in a definitetemporal cesses but a reflection anthropology. in endeavor crisis current the of the ethnographic examining currentsithazard this a not that is groups we live. I suggest self-defining which of cycliin native world of the is a systemicproduct transformation threatened is deeper a of others to represent in whichauthority uation in the worldsystem. movements and tendential cal of Crisis totheCurrent consistedin the classification Reactions format, This populations. practice,in its ethnographic of specificityto bounded Anthropological and imploded attribution inside the the world, explodedfrom has if not It "peoples"of the the skepticism be a growing longerunproblematic. no to is seem activity would of making kind and l991a). There themselves the outside(Friedman while "they"are busyidentifying from ouridentifications, kinds. disbeliefin areof severaldifferent atdiscourses histories. own ensuing their concerted the in and have consisted to this situation expeThereactions reactionappears to which the ethnographic postmodernist that not if variously Theself-reflective ethnographic experience era. This has been authority to capturethe tempts capturedin a previous have to ethnographic itself retain attemptsto was supposed rience back-door attemptto come as well earnest as more as narcissism or even object.Another, reproached ethnography, ethnographic dialogic thebenefitof a tame consisted self-consciously a (Marcus without in has global realities togripswiththeproblem of workingin contemporary in a kindof negative methods culin tone,has consisted attemptsat providing modernist more in termsof Western reaction, world third the A defined 1992). ethno1989, previously it is shown that past If anthropologis-ts at the same time as resemblance to a retrenchment. attacked be now can only superficial subbears it turalcategories,these that newfound a to revivein is truly modern, are attempting the asgraphicmodernity "objects" criticizes that sword ethnographic is a double-edged thosewho wouldidentify thatmanyprevious tradition" of "invention reprimanding jectivity.The whileimplicitly of culturalcontinuity relasumptions today. of two sets of polar This terms fantasies in cultural described such 1). be with might (see Figure modernity The identityspaceof and traditionalism/primitivism tions:modernism/postmodernism

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FOPUM

847

MODERNISM - culXre-nature

+culture TRAD1TIONALISM

+ natlre PRIMllIVISM

+ culture + nature POSTMODERNISM Figure1 Polarities of modernidentityspace. schemeis not designedto categorize peopleor any othersubstantive socialactorsbut to delimita hypothetical fieldof availableidentifications specificto Westernmodernity and to allowa clearerunderstanding of reactions to modernity as internalto it. The following description is admittedlyoversimplified for the purposesof illustrationratherthan argument(Friedman1988). Modernism embodiesa strategyof distantiation fromboth natureand culture,from both primitiveor biologicallybased drives and what are conceivedof as superstitious beliefs.It is a self-fashioned strategyof continuousdevelopmentin which abstractrationalityreplacesall othermoreconcretefoundations of humanaction.Traditionalism, I haveargued,is, in statisticalterms,the mostattractive solutionfora Goetheanalwayson-the-move subjectwho no longerhas anywhere to go. It opposesthe alienatedfreedom of modernity and attemptsto reinstatethe valuesand culturalfixityof a supposedly lost world.Primitivism opposesmodernexistenceas a formof socialcontrolto the freecreativityof nature,the humanpotentialexpressed in the formof libido, the traditionalist's "pornotopia" (Bell 1976:51). All culturein such a view is envisagedas a formof power. Postmodernism is an intellectualreactionagainstthe anti-culture and anti-nature contentof modernism. It is positivelyinclinedto all formsof wisdom,libidoliberation, creativityjlost values, and communionwith nature.While modernism is hegemonicin periodsof realhegemonic expansion,thereis a tendencyto trifurcation in periodsof crisis. In suchconditions modernism tendsto extremes of rationalism and developmentalism in a desperateattemptto ward off the two great enemiesof humanprogress,superstitionand self-gratification, whichloom everlargeras the futurebeginsto close in on the present and the past takeson a nostalgicauraof sanctuary. Anthropologists are, I assume as real subjectsin the world, as much a part of this quadruplepolarizationprocess as any other memberof our "declining"civilization. Since anthropology is located at the definingedge of Westernselfhood,it is especially sensitiveto the vectorsof identityformationthat characterize the space of modernity, eventhough,as a "scientific" discipline,it strivesto maintainan objectivedistancefrom its ethnographic reality.The reactionsdiscussedabove can be distributedwithin this space.Primitivism and traditionalism have both been evidentthroughout the historyof anthropology. Traditionalism can be associatedwith the earlyreaction,as it appearsin

848

AMERICAN ANTEROPOLOGIST

[94, 1992

the Boasianframework, to classicalevolutionism. Culturalrelativismoften harboreda critiqueof moderncivilization,and it sometimesmovedin the direetionof primitivism (Sapir1924).But it has also tendedto envisagemodernity as yet anotherculture,most oftenas nationalculture,sometimesas capitalistculture(Sahlins1976). In primitivism the modernappearsas the structured anddisciplining powerofthe state (Clastres as the absenceof a holisticrelationto nature(Bateson1972),and as the loss of 1977), meaning and authenticity(Sapir 1924;Diamond 1974). In contrastto traditionalism, the primitivist argumenttends to interpretprimitivecultureas an instrumentof basic human needsor an expression of a human(natural)essence.Someof the self-declared postmodern discourseis in many respectsa self-conscious primitivism(Friedrich1982;Tyler 1984) . Traditionalism is expressed in the formof value-laden relativism that emphasizes the specialmeritof culturaldifference and defendsthe latteragainstthe homogenizing powerof modernity.Its intellectualexpressiontakesthe formof culturaldeterminism, and a relativism that is positivelyenamored of reducingdifferences to culturalessences. Postmodernism as such is best expressed,perhaps,in the workof Clifford,who has systematically distancedhimselffromany formof fixed meaning,althoughthereis evidenceof a nostalgia fora former orderthathas beendissolvedby a globalizing modernity. He finds hopefulrefugein the notion of creolization,that the homogenizing spreadof Western culturearticulates with the restof the worldin the production of yet a new generation of cultural differences; "Westerners arenot the onlyonesgoingplacesin the modernworld"(Clifford 1988: 17). His nostalgiaconcerns the declineof purecultures,if there ever were any such animals. It is reflectedin his line, "The pure productsgo crazy" ( 1988: 1). He is also clearlycognizantthat the situationtodayconcernsthe declineof the authority to represent in the postcolonial world(Clifford1988:8). Clifford is clearlycognizantof the largercontext(partlya functionof distantiation) of theanthropological enterprise in today'sworld.Thereis no clearresolution to this problem.None,certainly, is offered, norevena glimpseof a possibility.If I designateClifford's discussion as quintessentially postmodern it is becausehe presentshis situationin terms ofthe declineof a modernity of authoritative discourses and accepts,even promotes,the multivocality of identifieations and self-identifications that have begun to crowda formerlyhegemonicand homogeneous field of representation. No solutionsare available here,only the contemplative distancingof the observerof observers of actorsobserving oneanotherand actingaccordingly. Clifford survivesthe crisisby retreating to the contemplation of acts of representation while at the same time being carefulnot to propose anyrepresentation of his own otherthan the polyphony of others'representations. But the usualsituationin whichthe anthropologist must findhimselfis the modernist impasse describedearlier.This is becausemodernism is the dominantconditionof academic praxis.It is in the natureof scholarlyinvestigation that the scholarbecomeseonvinced of results,not beingfullyawareof the presuppositions of the academicor research strategies involved.But what, afterall, are anthropologists doing when they write the history of the X? What kindof meaningis being constructed and for whom?This must beinvestigated if we are to escapethe hubrisof self-evidence that eharaeterizes muehof theanthropological discoursesurrounding the confrontation with "native"visions of their own cultureand history. As indicatedabove, no individualsor schoolscan be simplyclassifiedin termsof the four polar types. The latter representsignificantpoints in a largerspace, a space that allows us to chartvariationsin identityas well as clarifying the logiealcontentof modernity as a culturalconstruct. Traditionalism, in the anthropological formof culturalism, and modernism both partakein the ethnographic authoritythat is today underattack, while primitivism and postmodernism relinquishthat authorityin principle,at least, by accepting the legitimacyof the voice or text of the other (see Figure2). Modernism versus the Construction of Social Selfhood The specificity of modernist discourseregarding the makingof historyis basedon jectivismthat there is a real, narrativehistory,documentedor not, but which is obthe

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FORUM

849

Invendon of Tradidon (mnist demystitEcation)

+Authonty
.,

Culblrnli.sm

'

(tui of tmditis?n as code)

wS

(other cultures insccessible fFom modernity)

-Authonty

Po6t*

(polyphonic consdtution of reality)

Figure2 Polarities of anthropological identity. ultimatesourceof all historicaldiscourseto which the scientificsubjecthas access.The modernist strategyis basedon a cleardivisionof spaceinto the realand the represented. The latterimpliesthat statementsaboutrealitycan be measured in termsof theirtruthfulness,theirdegreeof correspondence to real events.The notionof inventedtradition, culture, or historyin suchan approach is simplythe application of this modelto ourown representations; that is, the demystification of our own history.Whateverformthis exercisemay take, it always resultsin the demonstration of the constructedcharacterof representations and therefore the assertion of theirfalsityand, by implication, theirmystificatory character. Whenappliedto any formof humanidentity,this is powerful medicine.Marxpracticed it on the representation of wealthin capitalism.Freudpracticedit on the mythsof individualidentity,and morerecentlyLacanhas made the demystificationof all ego identitythe cornerstone of his work.2Modernist approaches to social and culturalidentityhave followedsuit. BesidesHobsbawmand Ranger(1983), there are such clearpositionsas Gellner(1983), for whom culturalidentityis a kindoffalse consciousnessthat cannotendurethe secularization-rationalization of modernity.In a differentvein, Anderson(1983) construesthe modernnation as an imaginedcommunity, as a symbolicorganization creatinga collectivityfor which there is no concretesocial basis.The spateof articlesand collectionson ethnicityin the past few yearsreflectsnot onlythe logarithmic growthof new and revivedcultural identities,but also the modernist deconstructionism of intellectualswho have reactedto the tidal wave of ethnicityand rootsthathas engulfedtheiridentityless, if not alienated,existences.We mustgraspthis as a social realityin orderto understand why the interestlooms so large.The very fact thatthe modernist intellectual stancehas been undersuch severeattackis proofenough thatnot everyone subscribes to suchan approach to reality.I havesuggested,above,that it is onlyone of threepolarstrategies in a modernity in crisis.But its internallogic seems to harbortwoverydefinitecharacteristics. First,it ascribestruthand therefore authority to itself,the scientifically knowingsubject.Second,on this basis, it dividesthe worldof representation intoobjectivetruthversusfolkor ideological modelsof the world.And the objective worldrepresented in the workof the scholaris, in essence,a transparent image, whereasall otherimagesare opaque, transfigured, and, by implication,false. This approachmay workin periodsof hegemony,when anthropologists can speakor write the

850

AMERICANANTEIROPOLOGIST

[94, 1992

Other.Butin periodsof dissolution of hegemony, whenthe othersbeginidentifying themselves, eonflietmust arise as to the authorityto define,demystify,and debunkothers' eonstructions of themselves.3 Modernism in theField A modernistethnographer notes, with a eertaindismay, the shift in attitudesin the West:"Thosewho used to moekthe baekwardness of 'savages'in the name of Progress and Civilization are now (verbally)the fiereestdefenders of primitivity and arehaievalues" (Babadzan1988:206). It is this inverteddiseoursethat, aeeordingto Babadzan,is the root of the Kastom movement in Melanesia,a Manichean inversionof the signs of eolonialdominationthat is internalized by the nativesthemselves.And sinee the Westernrepresentation of loeal identitiesis organizedby sueh structures, it must also be false. Thus, fromthis point of view,the eritique of Western valuesis pointless,sineeit "makesthe eritieism of Westernizationand the apologyof primitivity nothingbut falsecriticismand falseapology"(Babadzan1988:206). And this is so simplybecauseit consistsin a "Western crzticism of Westernization" (Babadzan 1988:206,emphasis in original). These modernizedpopulations,emanating "fromthe mostWesternized socialclasses,thosemost removedfromtraditional lifestyle andvalues"(Babadzan1988:206), couldnot possiblyknowwhat theirreal culturesand traditions are all about. Babadzancementshis positionby invokingnot only "we moderns"but even the "true"natives.
Thisparadox, striking foran outsideobserver, is evenmoreso fromtheperspective of traditional populations, who have not yet relinquished theirculture,and who are referred to by the philoarchaic discourse.[1988:206]

Hereis the clearestexpression of the view thatmovements aimedat the reeonstruction andreestablishment of culturalmodelsarenecessarily theworkof modernized eharlatans whoselect and folklorize true eulturein termsof misinterpretations generatedby their modern interests.Andwhensuehneotraditionalist ideologues get theirpollutedclawson their own past, theyprodueea mythologieal paradiselost, ratherthanthe truehistoryof the"peoplewithouthistory."
Morethana negationof historyor a suddenand incomprehensible (becausetotal) culturalamnesia, it is a refusalto grasp the historicaldimensionof the relationship native societieshave sustained with the Westsinceculturalcontact.[Babadzan1988:208-209]

This is an extremeposition,perhaps,but it exemplifies the fundamental traitsof the Western modernist view of knowledge, which mightbe summarized as a seriesof propositions aboutthe world. 1. The Truthis singular.Thereis but one trueversionof the past. 2. The past eonsistsof an arbitrarily chosensegmentof a temporal continuumending with the presentmoment. 3. The structureattributedto this past is the productof a specifiekind of researeh earried out by thoseeompetentin the field. 4. This strueture is objeetiveand corresponds to proposition1, that is, it is singular. 5. All other strueturesor interpretations attributedto the past are, by implieation, ideological in the senseof misrepresentations. The "native'spointof view"is thus a merefolkmodelthat is the royalroad,perhaps, to the nativeuneonscious, to the deep struetures of the alien eulture,but is neverof an seientifie valueas definedin termsof the aboveparadigm. This is not a merequestionof a personalpoint of view, but a structurally positioned discourse. WhileBabadzan represents something of a pureformof thisdiscourse,the less hardened variantsto whichwe shall referclearlybelongto the samefamily. Keesing,for example,has, in his engagementin the politicaleonditionsof Melanesians, attemptedto grasp the positiveaspeets of eulturallydefinedpower strugglesby

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FORUM

851

pointingout the specifically politicalaspectof culturalmovementssuch as Kastom.He invokesGramscias well as Guha (1982-87) in analyzingsuch movementsas subaltern phenomena that involvethe reversalof signs attributedto a singleclassificatory scheme imposedby a once-dominant colonialpower.Similarlyto Babadzan,he stressesthe colonial classificatory origin of the categoriesof identity in terms of which Melanesians struggletoday.But, whileseekingto understand the termsof struggle,he also arguesfor a morepurelymodernist stance.
A deeplyradicaldiscourse(one that questionsbasic assumptions) would aspireto liberateus frompasts,boththoseof ourancestors and thoseof (colonialor other)domination, as well as to use themas politicalsymbols.[1989:25]

Hereagainis the notionthat representations of the world,bothpast and present,must be transparent in orderto be serviceable in politicalterms.4There is, of course,a truth in this, the truththat imploresus not to engagein witchcraft accusations in timesof coloniallyor postcolonially generatedcrisis,but to engagethe trueenemies,the realproblems.But thisis also a normative engagement, one that appearsrationalsinceit is based entirelyon the premiseof context-free rationalityin a universethat does not exist, not evenin our own cornersof the world.Peopleengagedin reconstituting (or constituting) themselves do not want to be liberatedfromtheirpasts (Trask1991:164),and it might be arguedthat the transparency requiredby Keesing (199la, 1991b)is totally incompatiblewith the forgingof culturalidentity.In any caseit mustlead to confrontation due to the necessary emergence of conflicting definitions of realitywherethe anthropologist, likeit or not, is representative of the centerof authority as againstthosewho are engaged n constructlng t zelrown 1CientltleS.
. . . . . .

ForHawaiians anthropologists in generalare partof the colonizinghordebecausethey seek to takeawayfromus the powerto definewho and whatwe are, and howwe shouldbehavepoliticallyand culturally. [Trask1991 :163]

The importance of thisconflictlies in its structural properties, not in the personalcharacteristics of those involved.Keesinghas for yearsbeen engagedin the strugglefor the rightsof the indigenous peoplesof the Pacificand was one of the few who madethe issue of the colonialtransformation of traditional societiesa centralpartof gexleral anthropology. Yet we sense that thereis an absoluteincompatibility betweenthe disauthentification of cultureimplied in the demystification of cultural-historical constructsand the identityof thosedoing the constructing. F. AllanHanson,writingof the "making" of the Maori,has also triedto demonstrate the way in which the construction of myth or historyis an invention,or in his terms,a "signsubstitution" (Hanson 1989:899).Hansonexplicitlyadopts the kind of postmodernistline referred to above, that is, he refusesto accept, at least in principle,a fixed criterion of truth-value, whichhe interprets as "logocentrism," followingDerrida( 1967; Tyler 1991). While the argumentexplicitlystressesthe uneventfulness of inventions, whichhe equateswith the normalcourseof culturalchange,the bruntof the discussion cannotbe interpreted other than as a demonstration of the fact that varioustraditions, including"thegreatfleet"storyof the immigration to New Zealandand the cult of Io as the supreme god, are relicsof Westernmissionaries and that theircurrentplacein Maori self-identification is somehownothingmorethan the internalization of foreignrepresentationsof the Maori.In one sense, the endeavorof the anthropologist is to demonstrate that the categoriesthat informour ethnography are not basedin empiricaldata but are imposedby our ideology'sclassification of the largerworld.But the text itselfcannotbe interpreted in any other sense than as a falsification of the constructions of Maoriselfidentification. It is basedon an absolutedistinctionbetweensomethingaboriginaland something impure,mixed,Westernized, and while the generalargumentis that thereis no difference, the effectof the articleis to reinforce precisely sucha difference. One reason forthis is that the processof inventionis neverin question.Ifforeignrepresentations are assimilated to Maoriself-identification, the processby whichthisoccurred is not an issue,

852

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[94, 1992

only the product,as if a storysuch as the Hawaiiki,or a migration fromancientIsrael, werea discreteobjectlikeany other ethnographic object. There are neither motivations, nora strategy of appropriation-transformation, nora processof identification that might makesense out of this apparently neutralprocessthat simultaneously harborsthe connotation of falsity.Needlessto say, this article provoked a reactionthatfoundits way into the pagesof the New York Times, to say nothingof the numerous local newspapers of the reglon. Linnekin represents an interesting case of a confrontation with nativeactivists.In an early article (1983) her positionlonger-term is clearlyin the camp of the "invention" school(Handlerand Linnekin1984).Traditionis hereenvisagedas a constantlychangingproductof currentcircumstances, which would imply that it is necessarily"false" insofar as it is a sociallyorganized projection of an ever-changing presentontoa supposed past.But in discussingthe Hawaiiansshe suggests anotherdefinitionof traditionwhere it"properly refersto the precontactera" (Linnekin 1983:242).The impliedcriteriaof falsification thrusther into a sustainedcritiqueof the culturalcontentof the Hawaiian movement. She has recentlybegunto question,however inadvertently, this doublethink: how do we
R

defendthe "realpast" (Keesing1989:37)and "genuine"traditions(see Babadzan 1988;Hobsbawm and Ranger1983)if we acceptthat all cultural representations even scholarlyones are contingent and embedded in a particular socialand politicalcontext(see Haraway 1989)?[Linnekin1990:3]

Linnekin is nowapparently awareof the multiplicity of interpretations involvedin representing "tradition" and the difference in the positionsof anthropologist and the selfdefining native and claims that authoritative realistsor objectivists,such as Keesing, have not understood that in today'sworldof contested finitive standing for a particularrepresentationof a realities,"It is folly to claimdeprecontact culture" (Linnekin 1990:23). But standingfor what one is in the negotiationof other people's culture is "likely to entailsome unease"(Linnekin1990:23). She tempersher approachin such a way that Westernauthorityis not definitivebut negotiable while never succumbingentirelyto indigenous self-representations, "a discomfort thatwe mayhaveto live with" (Linnekin It represents, as such,a compromise (forher) wheresome categoriescan be 1990:25). deconstructed but not others,or at least where one shouldbe expectedto be attackedby some militants,if not by all, for one's interpretations. But in her examples,the formerand apparently still dominantvision of the oppositionbetween the knowing scholar and the excited student or militant reemerge as when ancientgourdhelmets,very unlikely associatedwith warfare,are depicted today as part of a warrior-hero, bodybuilding, pit-bullowningimage of "tradition," at least as it all occurson T-shirts (Linnekin1990:24).The meritsand faults of Hawaiian paramounts are similarlydiscussed,and assuresus that she presents an imageto her studentsthat is neithereuphoric Linnekin to the Edenic"(1990:22),and this, evidently,as nor damning,althoughshe does "lean the Thus, in spite of cautionsand a certainuneaseconcerning resultof objectiveresearch. the wholeacademicproject,the latter discourse is still fashionedby authoritarian parameters. And the problemis not one of attitudes, but of structure. If one is engagedin "negotiating culture,"that is, involvedin the construal and interpretation of ethnographic or historical realities,thenone is bound on a collisioncoursewith othersfor whom such realitiesare definitive.Cultureis supremely negotiable forprofessional cultureexperts,but for thosewhoseidentity depends upon a particular configuration this is not the case. Identityis not negotiable. it Otherwise, has no existence. Inall of these cases, modernism has come into with others'construction of theiridentities.This is not an error,adirectconfrontation misinterpretation by the mediaor by the "natives"themselves.It is a necessarystructural relationbetweenprofessional anthropological identityand those segmentsof the world that are concernedto produce their own identities.One cannotcombinea strategy of empiricaltruth-value with a sensitive politics,simply becausethe formeris also a politicalstrategy.I am not arguing

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY 155UES FORUM

853

againstsciencehere,but againstan inconsequential posture,itselfan outcomeof the confusionof academicand realpolitics.Only Keesinghas adoptedan openlyconsistentposition.For the othersthe confrontation takesthe formof a conflictbetweenthe academy and the street. An anthropology that is engagedin the lives of other people and takes seriouslythe politicalconflictsinvolvedin strugglesfor culturalidentityought not perhapsto be concerned withdefining otherpeoples'culturesby meansof independent interpretations of gourdhelmetsand historicaltexts. The engagedmodernistmay come into "authentic" conflictwith othersin seekingto demystifythe world.The academicmodernistis more concernedto preservethe authorityof the scholar,the monopolyof the truthabout the worldfor the sake of knowledgeitself. One criticalanthropologist has recentlyresponded by asking,"Is anybodyout there?"(Sutton1991:91). My argumenthas consistedin trying to demonstratethe relationbetweenWestern modernism and the construction by anthropologists of otherpeoples'identitiesand histories.I havebeenespecially concerned to showthatthe crisisof modernity has generated a numberof variationson this identity-- postmodernism, traditionalism, primitivismwhichare not externalto Westernidentityspace but its definingpolarities.It is among the modernistsand the culturalists(neotraditionalists) that the questionof authority loomslargest,andit is amongsuchpractitioners thatthe questionofthe rightto represent the past has becomesuch an importantissue. As we have implied,the questionof ownershipis a questionof whohas the rightto defineanotherperson's or population's culture. In a globalperspective, this questionhas arisenbecausethe hegemonicstructure of the worldis no longera reality,and with it, the homogenythat was its culturalformis also dissolving.This is a world-systemic phenomenon, ratherthan the resultof an internal development in anthropology or in Westerncultureas such.

Identityand the Construction of History

In Islands of History, Sahlinsdismisses,with great flair, the assertionof Hindess and Hirst,self-reformed structural Marxists,that
Historical eventsdo not exist [in] and can have no materialeffectivity in the present.The conditionsof existenceof presentsocialrelations necessarily exist in and are constantly reproduced in the present.[Hindessand Hirst 1975:312]

Sahlinsinvokesthe counterassertion that "culture is precisely the organization ofthe currentsituationin the termsof a past" (Sahlins1985:155). Our argumenthas restedupon the assertionthat the past is alwayspracticedin the present,not becausethe past imposesitself, but becausesubjectsin the presentfashion the past in the practiceof their social identity.Thus "the organization of the current situationin the termsof a past" can only occurin the present.The past that effectsthe presentis a past constructed and/or reproduced in the present.Mythopractice in such termsis not the realization of myth in practicebut the practiceof mythmaking. None of this,furthermore, shouldbe conflated with historical process,that is, the continuous and transformational processof social reproduction over time. The impositionof a modelof the past on the presentoccursas a willfulact in socialization and in social movements, and in both cases the relationbetweenthe constitution of identityand the identification of the past are stronglysystemic(Alberoni1984) . The constitution of identityis an elaborate and deadlyseriousgameof mirrors.It is a complextemporal interaction of multiplepractices of identification externaland internal to a subjector population.In order to understandthe constitutiveprocessit is, thus, necessary to be able to situatethe mirrorsin space and theirmovementin time. I have arguedthat a globalhistoricalperspective is necessary in orderto graspthe formation of Greekand Hawaiianidentities.Until recently,anthropologists may have been most familiarwith the dissolution of culturalidentitiesbroughton by imperialexpansions.The historyof Westernexpansionis litteredwith examplesof the combineddestructionof culturalidentityand its psychological aftermath. But the construction or reconstruction

854

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOCIST

[94, 1992

of identityis just as violentand dangerousa processfor all involved.The emergenceof culturalidentityimpliesthe fragmentation of a largerunityand is alwaysexperienced as a threat.It is ofteneriminalized and oftenpunished.I have arguedthat it is primarily in periodsof declininghegemonythat such outburstsof culturalidentification become a genuinepossibility.The politicalconditionsof globalprocessare such that culturalheterogeneity is inverselyrelatedto politicalhegemonyover time. And since historyis the discourse of identity,the questionof who "owns"or appropriates the past is a question of who is able to identifyhim-or herselfand the otherat any giventime and place. If the fragmentation of a worldorderimpliesthe multiplication of culturalidentities(Friedman 1989a:67), the latteris expressed in theproliferation of histories.Multipleidentitiesimply multiplehistories. The SamoanauthorAlbertWendthas made the argumentpoignantly:';A societyis whatit remembers; we are whatwe remember; I am what I remember; the self is a trick of memory"(Wendt 1987:79).And while he is surelyawareof the class or elite manipulationof tradition, he has madethe strategicdecisionto takethis up on his ownground. In orderto do this he has to locateand criticizethe mirroring that mighteasilyaffecthis own self-construction.
Formostof us, our memories are not a cursebecauseour remembering reorders our memories and sparesus mostof the pain and suffering.... Margaret Mead'sSamoacontinuesto stereotypeus Samoans andcausesenseless warsbetweenegotistical non-Samoan academics; hopefully someof mycreatures willliveon afterme to entertain themachines-who-think whowill be saving my greatgrandchildren fromthemselves.[Wendt1987:81]

ForWendt,the problemis how to extricate oneselffrom the fieldof discourse of a dominantOther.One has beendescribed, characterized, andrepresented to theworld some world,at least a worldthat exists as an image, an imaginaryworldof information or misinformation thatreturns homewith a vengeanceand stereotypically forcesissuesthat mayhaveneverbeforeexistedin such terms.
So we can say that historyis a papalagi[outsider]historyof themselves and theiractivitiesin ourregion; it is an embodiment of theirmemories/perceptions/and interpretations of the Pacific. Andwhenwe teachthathistoryin ourschoolswe aretransmitting theirmemories to ourchildren andconsequently reordering ourchildren's memories. Perhaps it is fortunate thatin ourcolonial systemsof educationwe weren'ttaughtany Pacifichistory,not even the papalagiversionsof it.... However,my childrenand I all got an overdoseof the historiesof Europe/America and England as prescribed in the SchoolCertificate and the UniversityEntrance.[1987:86-87]

Is this the modelof "Europeand the peoplewithouthistory"(Wolf 1982)?If so, then it is a practiceof speaking,or writingthe other from the side of the hegemon.In the breakdown of the authoritythat generatessuch a possibility,a new voice appears.This is not the voice of reversal,not even, necessarily, of subalternpower,but a complexunderstanding relatedto the internalization of a Westerndiscoursethat can now be placed in a perspective that encompasses and supersedes the formersituation.
I'm not arguingthat outsidersshouldnot writeabout us, but they must not pretendthey can writefrominsideus.... I wouldnevertry to tell a novelfromthe viewpointof a papalagi.If I havea papalagias a majorcharacter I will view him in the novelthroughthe eyes of a Samoan character-narrator. [Wendt1987:89]6

Conclusion I have,as statedfromthe outset,investigated twoaspectsof the relationbetweensocial identification and the makingof history.The first concernedthe relationbetweenthe socialconditions of identityformation and the production of culturally viablepasts.The secondintroduced modernso-calledscientificconstructions of otherpeoples'pasts into thesameframeof argument. "Objective" historyin thisdiscussion isjust as mucha social construct as any otherhistory,and it cannotbe simplyacceptedat face value. If, as we havesuggested,all constructions of the past are sociallymotivatedand have, thus, to be

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FORUM

855

understood in positionalterms,then we can begin to come to grips with the currently agonisticrelationof anthropology to the contestedrealitiesof formerly silentothers.This necessitates a comprehension of locally specificlogics of self-construction as well as the interaction and even constitution of the latterin a largerarena.Since the attribution of meaningand construction of culturalmodelsis a motivatedpractice,our own purported truth-value visionof historyand ethnography mustbe understood in termsof the way in whichit is produced,if we are to place it alongsidethe way other peopleproducetheir ownvisions.The ideas that culturecan be negotiatedand that inventionis a questionof sign substitution, a kind of cognitiveexercisein pure textualcreativity,are linkedto a structure of selfand of culturethatis perhapsspecificto capitalistmodernity. Elsewhere, I, amongmanyothers,have arguedthat these conceptsare dependentupon a priorexperienceof the divisionbetweensubjectand role (identity)reflectedin the divisionbetweenprivateand public and expressedin notions, such as representativity, in which symbols"standfor"something otherthanthemselves, as opposedto a situationin which theyareimmediate realities(Friedman 1989b; Campbell1987;Sennett1974).This is the difference betweenthe ritual mask that containsthe powerof the god and the theater maskthat is a mererepresentation, a symbolor imageof that whichit represents. Modernityimpliesthe separation of symbolfromthat to whichit refers.The notionof culture as code,paradigm, and semioticis very mucha productof modernidentity.Someof the cynicaldismissalof otherpeoples'constructions of theirpastsis merelya productof modernistidentityin defenseof itself.7^ Similarly,contemporary roots,ethnicity,and even racismare variousformsof traditionalistreactionto the above. It has not been my purposenor my interestto passjudgmenton the relativevalue of the discoursesinvolved,althoughmy own objectivistpositionoughtto be obviousin the endeavorto grapplewith the confrontation betweenmodernistanthropologists and theirsubjectsfromthe outside,so to speak.That positionis a product,as I most readilyadmit, of a specificWesternsocial context.The global perspectiveembodiesa self-conscious avoidanceof the polar identifications discussed.In maintaining a strict identitylessposition,it also strives to understandthe constitutive processes of socialidentityand the culturalstructures generated by the latter.This must includethe simultaneous attemptto understand the modernidentitythat producesour own discourses.In a world where culturalfragmentation has taken on extremesthat mightbe seen as alarming,the kindsof phenomena addressed hereoughtto be of crucial importance. The currentcampusrevoltagainstwhat is seen as Westernhegemonicrepresentations of the worldis evidenceof the kindof globalprocessdetailedin this discussion.

Despitetheopposition of the historian CarlDegleranda fewothers,the Stanford FacultySenate by 39 to 4 votedin 1988to dropthe termWestern andsubstitute a requirement of a three-course sequence of culturalmixtures.[Woodward 1991:33]

The afiirmative action programsat the universitiesand the generalincreasein the powerof minority voiceshas beendeploredby someas "thefragmentation of ourculture into a quarrelsome spatterof enclaves,ghettosand tribes"(Schlesinger 1991,quotedin Woodward 1991:37).Otherresearchers see the fragmentation as a positivereturnofthe local and even a new tribalgemeinschaft (Maffesoli1986). I have tried to suggestthat suchconflictsmustbe placedin a widerperspective. Morespecifically, I have suggested herethat theyare an expression of the realfragmentation of a formerly hegemonicworld system. The establishment or, as nationalists wouldargue,the reestablishment of Greekidentity and historywas an immediateand necesssary aspectof the fragmentation of the OttomanEmpireand the integrationof the Greekpeninsulainto a rising Westernhegemony.The currentfragmentation of the worldsystemis a larger-scale phenomenon.It mightalso represent a transitionto a new hegemonicstructure.In any case, in orderto understand suchprocesses we need,I think,to gain the broader, globalperspective I have

856

AMERICAN ANTEROPOLOGIST

[94, 1992

proposed.The motivationfor this approachis the aspirationto comprehend wherewe have comefromand wherewe are going. And it would appearthat we are all actorsin thisprocesswhetherwe like it or not. In the absenceof such a perspective we mightwell be plungedinto the veryidentitystrugglesthatwe mosturgentlyneed to beginto understand. Constructing the past is an act of self-identification and must be interpreted in its authenticity,that is, in termsof the existentialrelationbetweensubjectsand the constitutionof a meaningful world.This relationmaybe vastlydifferent in different kindsof social orders.It is also a practicethat is motivatedin historically, spatially,and sociallydeterminate circumstances. The latter in their turn are systemicallygeneratedin a larger globalprocessthat mighthelp us to accountfor the vicissitudesof identityconteststhat havebecomeso pervasivein this periodof globalcrisisand restructuring. JONATHANFRIEDMAN isProfessor, DepartmentofSocialAnthropology, UniversityofLund, S-211 00Lund, Sweden. Notes
'Other well-known concepts, such as kapu (sacred/forbidden), mana (life-force), and ho'okipa (hospitality), are closely related to the above concepts. The mana of the land and sea, the kapus that must be observed in relation to it, the ho'okipa that founds community, are all intimately related to the relations of encompassment, dependency, and unity that are expressed in ohana and aloha. 2Hegel was, of course, first in this endeavor, in attempting to demonstrate the alienation of any specific or concrete identity, but his holism belies a project that is quite the contrary of objectivist demystification . 3Anthropologists have taken great pains to distance themselves from the project of disauthentification implied in their discourse (Linnekin l991a). But no disavowal adequately redresses the effects of demystification. That all societies and most individuals tend to mystify themselves in constructing pasts based on present conditions, motivations, and desires ought to imply that the truth of a particular representation of the past is important only in relation to a clearly defined baseline, an "objective" reality. The modernist universe is one in which contestation is central to the accumulation of knowledge about the word, objective knowledge in the Popperian sense (Popper 1972). But if representations have other functions than that of representing, the modernist must necessarily appear as a spoiler. The truth of histories is only relevant in a universe of discourse based on comparison with alternative versions. By adopting a modernist (i.e., falsificationist) paradigm, one has also engaged oneself in the politics of other peoples' self-representations. 4The notion of transparency refers to an implied absence of distortion in the relation between that which represents and that which is represented. 5Since this article was written, a number of debates have blossomed among anthropologists themselves as to the nature and political significance of the identification of other people's invented traditions. That ethnographic identity or authority is truly in jeopardy in these discussions vindicates our argument (Levine 1991; Linnekin l991b; Hanson 1991; Jolly 1992). Those who would support Hanson's position can do so only in terms of the expertise of the anthropologist as ethnographeror historian. The problem with the defense of the invention thesis is that it is self-contradictory. If all culture is invention then there is nothing with which to compare a particular cultural product, no authentic foundation. It implies a serious contradiction between the often-asserted commonality of cultural creativity and a discourse that consistently attributes inauthenticity to modern cultural products. 6In a deeper sense, our ultimate goal as human beings ought to be to grasp precisely cultural production from the inside, on the basis of a project of the unification of humanity in its diversity, atleast at the level of understanding. But this should only make sense for those trying to understand, not for those who become the object of that understanding and whose problems might be totallyirrelevant to this anthropological project. What must, however, be eliminated, as Wendt putsit, is the pretension to such an understanding without the benefit of dialogue. Only other people can know ultimately what is going on inside of them. It would be absurd to presume otherwise as absurd as it is implicit in authoritative discourse itself. 7We have implied that there are different ways of attributing meaning founded on different practicesof self-constitution. Identification with the Lost Tribes of Israel, for example, which has oc-

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FORUM

857

curred amonga greatmanysocietiesunderthe influence of certainmissionary denominations, cannot be dismissed in termsof ourownviewsof worldhistoryandofthe Bible.It mustbe understood in termsof specificacts of attribution of meaningin definitehistoricalcontexts.The powerand statusof missionaries in manysocietieshas rendered them and theirsacredbookssourcesof lifeforceand well-beingfor societiesin disintegration, most oftenas the directand indirectresultof theirpresence. Comingfromthe Holy Land,descended fromthe Peopleof the Bookis a sourceof sacredidentityin a situationwherethe Bookitselfis the expression of the strengthor mana of the superordinate colonialpower.

ReferencesCited
Abaza,M., and G. Stauth 1990 OrientalReason,Orientalism,Islamic Fundamentalism: A Critique.In Globalization, Knowledge, and Society.M. Albrowand E. King, eds. Pp. 209-230. New York:Sage. Alberoni, F. 1984 Movement and Institution. New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Anderson, B. 1983 ImaginedCommunities: Reflections on the Originand Spreadof Nationalism.London: Verso. Babadzan, A. 1988 Kastom and Nation-Building in the SouthPacific.In Ethnicities andNations.R. Guidieri, F. Pellizzi,and S. Tambiah.Austin:Universityof Texas Press. Bateson,G. 1972 Stepsto an Ecologyof Mind.New York:Ballantine. Bell,D. 1976 The CulturalContradictions of Capitalism. London: Heinemann. Bernal,M. 1987 BlackAthena:The Afroasiatic Rootsof Classical Civilization. Volume1:The Fabrication of AncientGreece,1785-1985. London:FreeAssociation Books. Campbell, C. 1987 The RomanticEthicand the Spiritof ModernConsumerism. Oxford: Blackwell. Clastres, P. 1977 Societyagainstthe State.Oxford:Blackwell. Clifford, J. 1988 The Predicament of Culture.Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Derrida, J. 1967 L'Ecriture et la difference. Paris:Seuil. Diamond,S. 1974 In Searchof the Primitive: A Critiqueof Civilization. New Brunswick, NJ:Dutton. Friedman, J. 1982 Catastrophe and Continuity in SocialEvolution. In Theoryand Explanation in Archaeology.C. Renfrew et al., eds. London: AcademicPress. 1985 CaptainCook,Cultureand the WorldSystem. Journalof PacificHistory20:191-201. 1988 CulturalLogicsof the GlobalSystem.Theory Culture andSociety 3(2-3) :447-460. 1989a Culture,Identityand WorldProcess.Review12(1):51-69. 1989b The Consumption of Modernity. Cultureand History4:117-130. l991a FurtherNotes on the Adventures of Phallusin Blunderland. In Constructing Knowledge:Authority and Critiquein SocialScience.L. Nenceland P. Pels, eds. Pp. 95-113. London:Sage. l991b Notes on Cultureand Identityin ImperialWorlds.In Religionand ReligiousPractice in the SeleucidKingdom.P. Bilde, P. Engb.erg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad,andJ. Zahle, eds. Pp. 1F39. itrhus:ArhusUniversityPress. 1992a Narcissism, Rootsand Postmodernity: The Constitution of Selfhood in theGlobalCrisis. In Modernity and Identity.S. LashandJ. Friedman, eds. Pp. 331-366. Oxford: Blackwell. 1992b Myth,History,and PoliticalIdentity.Cultural Anthropology 7:19X210. Friedrich, P. 1982 LinguisticRelativismand Poetic Indeterminacy. (Unpublishedms. in author'spossession.) Gellner,E. 1983 Nationsand Nationalism. Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversityPress.

858

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOCIST

Guha,R. 1982-87 Subaltern Studies,I-V. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. HandQler, R., andJ. Linnekin 1984 Tradition, Genuineor Spurious.Journal of American Folklore 97:273-290. Hanson,F. A. 1989 The Makingof the Maori:CultureInventionand Its Logic. AmericanAnthropologist 91:890-902. 1991 Replyto Langdon,Levine,and Linnekin. American Anthropologist 93:449-450. Haraway, D. 1989 Primate Visions:Gender,Race and Naturein the Worldof ModernScience.New York: Routledge. Herzfeld, M. 1987 Anthropology throughthe LookingGlass:CriticalEthnography in the Marginsof Europe.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. Hindess,B., and P. Hirst 1975 Pre-Capitalist Modesof Production. London:Routledge and KeganPaul. Hobsbawm, E., and T. Ranger,eds. 1983 Inventing Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. Jolly, M. 1992 Specters of Inauthenticity. Contemporary Pacific4(1):42-72. Just, R. 1989 Triumphof the Ethnos.In Historyand Ethnicity.E. Tonkin, M. McDonald,and M. Chapman, eds. London:Routledge. Kame'eleihiwa, Lilikala 1986 Land and the Promiseof Capitalism.Ph.D. dissertation, I)epartment of History,Universityof Hawaii. Keesing,R. 1989 Creating the Past:Customand Identityin the Contemporary Pacific.Contemporary Pacific l:19-42. l 991a Replyto Trask.In Contemporary Pacific2:168-169. l991b The Past in the Present:ContestedRepresentations of Cultureand History. (Unpublishedms. in author'spossession.) Kyriakides, S. 1968 Two Studieson ModernGreekFolklore. Thessalonika: Instituteof BalkanStudies. Levine,H. B. 1991 Commenton Hanson's"The Makingof the Maori."American Anthropologist 93:44G 446. Linnekin, J. 1983 DefiningTradition: Variations on the HawaiianIdentity.American Ethnologist10:241252. 1990 On the Theoryand Politicsof Cultural Construction in the Pacific.(Unpublished ms. in author's possession.) l991a Text Bites and the R-Word: The Politicsof Representing Scholarship. Contemporary Pacific2:172-177. l991b Cultural Invention and the Dilemmaof Authenticity. American Anthropologist 93:446448. Maffesoli, M. 1986 Le tempsdes tribus.Paris:Minuit. Malo,D. 1837 LetterfromMalo to Ka'ahumanu II and Mathew.Aug. 18. ForeignOffice,Letterbook IX, Honolulu. 1839 On the Decreaseof Populationon the HawaiianIslands. LorrinAndrews,trans. HawaiianSpectator 2(2):121-130. Mango,C. 1965 Byzantineand RomanticHellenism. Journalof the Warburgand CourtauldInstitutes 18:29-43 Marcus,G. 1989 Imaginingthe Whole:Ethnography's Contemporary Efforts to SituateItself.Critiqueof Anthropology 9(3):7-30.

[94, 1992

Friedman]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FORUM

859

1992 Past, Presentand EmergentIdentities:Requirements for Ethnographies of Late Twentieth CenturyModernityWorldwide. In Modernityand Identity.S. Lash andJ. Friedman, eds. Pp. 309-330. Oxford: Blackwell. Michas,P. M. 1977 From"Romios" to "Hellene"(or Greek): A Studyin SocialDiscontinuity. M. A. thesis, ArhusUniversity. Popper, K. 1972 Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. Sahlins,M. 1976 Cultureand Practical Reason.Chicago: ChicagoUniversityPress. 1985 Islandsof History.Chicago: ChicagoUniversityPress. Sapir,E. 1924 Culture,Genuineand Spurious. AmericanJournal of Sociology29:401-429. Schlesinger, A. 1991 The Disuniting of America.Knoxville,TN: WhittleDirectBooks. Sennett,R. 1974 The Fallof PublicMan. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. Stewart, C. S. 1830 Journalof a Residencein the SandwichIslandsduringthe years 1823, 1824and 1825. London: Fisher,Son and P.Jackson. Sutton,D. 1991 Is AnybodyOut There?Anthropology and the Questionof Audience.Critiqueof Anthropology 11( 1):91-104. Trask,H. 1991 Nativesand Anthropologists: The ColonialStruggle. Contemporary Pacifie2:159-167. Tyler,S. 1984 The PoeticTurnin Postmodern Anthropology: The Poetryof Paul Friedrich. American Anthropologist 86:32>336. 1991 A Post-modern In-stance.In Constructing Knowledge: Authority and Critiquein Social Science.L. Nenceland P. Pels, eds. Pp. 78-94. London:Sage. Wendt,A. 1987 Novelists,Historiansand the Art of Remembering. In Class and Culturein the Pacific. A. Hooperet al., eds. Pp. 78-91. Suva and Auckland: Instituteof PacificStudiesof the Universityof the SouthPacificand Centrefor PacificStudiesof the Universityof Auckland. Wolf,E. 1982 Europeand the PeoplewithoutHistory.Berkeley: Universityof California Press. Woodward, C. Vann 1991 Freedom and the Universities. Review ofIlliberalEducation: The Politicsof Raceand Sex on Campus,by DineshD'Souza.New YorkReviewof Books,July18, pp. 32-37.
o