Tradition, Genuine or Spurious Author(s): Richard Handler and Jocelyn Linnekin Source: The Journal of American Folklore, Vol.

97, No. 385 (Jul. - Sep., 1984), pp. 273-290 Published by: American Folklore SocietyAmerican Folklore Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/540610 Accessed: 15/10/2010 07:41
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=illinois and http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=folk. 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.

University of Illinois Press and American Folklore Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of American Folklore.

http://www.jstor.org

RICHARD JOCELYN

HANDLER and LINNEKIN

Tradition, Genuineor Spurious

"tradition" is at once a commonsenseand a scientific category. In its commonsense meaning, tradition refers to an inherited body of customs and beliefs. In the social sciences, an ongoing of discoursehas attemptedto refinethis understanding traditionas it has proven empirically and theoretically inadequate. Recent efforts to clarify the concept of tradition, most notably those of EdwardShils (1971, 1981), do much but to add nuanceto our conventionalunderstanding leave unresolveda major does traditionreferto a core of inheritedculture traits whose conambiguity: tinuity and boundednessare analogous to that of a natural object, or must traditionbe understoodas a wholly symbolicconstruction?We will arguethat the latter is the only viable understanding-a conclusionwe have arrivedat by comparingour independentinvestigationsin two quite disparate ethnographic situations. In our attempts to analyze national and ethnic identification in Quebec and Hawaii we have concluded that tradition cannot be defined in terms of boundedness,givenness, or essence. Rather, traditionrefersto an interpretiveprocessthat embodiesboth continuity and discontinuity. As a scientific concept, traditionfails when those who use it are unableto detachit from the implicationsof Western common sense, which presumesthat an unchanging core of ideas and customs is always handeddown to us from the past. As many writers have noted (e.g., Eisenstadt1973; Rudolph and Rudolph 1967; Singer 1972; Tipps 1973), one inadequacy of the conventional of understanding traditionis that it posits a falsedichotomy between tradition and modernity as fixed and mutually exclusive states. M. E. Smith (1982) has pointed out that "traditional" and "new" are interpretiverather than descriptiveterms: since all cultureschange ceaselessly,there can only be what is new, although what is new can take on symbolic value as "traditional." Following Smith's lead, we can see that designatingany part of culture as old or new, traditionalor modern, has two problematicimplications. First, this apas proach encouragesus to see culture and tradition naturalistically, bounded entities made up of constituent partsthat are themselvesboundedobjects. Second, in this atomisticparadigmwe treat culture and its constituentsas entities having an essence apart from our interpretation of them; we attempt to specify, for example, which trait is old, which new, and to show how traitsfit
LIKE MANY SCHOLARLY CONCEPTS,
Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 97, No. 385, 1984 Copyright 1984 by the American Folklore Society 0021-8715/84/3850273-18$2.30/1

274

RICHARDHANDLERandJOCELYN LINNEKIN

together in the largerentities that we call "a culture" and "a tradition." The task of a naturalisticscienceof traditionis to identify and describethe essential attributes of cultural traits, rather than to understandour own and our subjects' interpretivemodels. The prevailingunderstandingof tradition, both in our commonsense notion and in scholarlyelaborationsof it, embodies these premises. The naturalistic conception of tradition can be traced to a lineage of Western social-scientificthought that dates at least from Edmund Burke and the reaction to the Enlightenment (Mannheim 1953). The 19th-centuryconcepts of traditionand traditionalsociety, used (whether as ideal types or as empiricalgeneralizations)as a baselineagainstwhich to understandsocial change and "modern society," were embodied in such well-known dichotomies as Maine's status and contract, T6nnies' Gemeinschaftand Gesellschaft, Durkheim's mechanicaland organic solidarity, and, into the 20th century, Sapir'sgenuine and spuriousculture and Redfield's folk-urbancontinuum. In of Americananthropology, the receivedunderstanding traditionis exemplified A. L. Kroeber's classic definition: tradition is the "internal handing on by through time" of culture traits (Kroeber 1948:411). Kroeber'sdefinition accords with the commonsenseview of traditionas a core of traits handeddown from one generation to the next. Kroeberalso enunciatedpremisesthat have proven tenaciousin scholarlydiscussionsof tradition, especiallythe identification of a society with a particular tradition, and the notion that temporalconof tinuity is the defining characteristic social identity. Kroeber's concept of tradition found its most logical applicationin American archaeology,where tradition refers to "single technologies or other unified systems of forms" characterized "long temporal continuity" (Willey and Phillips 1958:37). by The archaeological concept points up the implications of modeling the phenomenonof traditionafter naturalobjects. We would argue that tradition resemblesless an artifactual assemblagethan a processof thought-an ongoing interpretationof the past. In contrastto Kroeber'sconceptionof tradition, the merit of EdwardShils's approachis his insistence that tradition changes continually. Shils (1981:19) acknowledgesthat the unchangingfolk society never existed, and is carefulto build variationinto his definition of traditionalphenomena: "they change in the process of transmission as interpretations are made of the tradition presented"(1981:13). SinceShilsrecognizesthat traditionchangesincessantly, of it is surprisingto find that his understanding traditiondependsnonetheless upon the notion of an unchanging, essentialcore. He therebyperpetuatesthe naturalistic paradigm, which defines objects by specifying their temporal, spatial, and/or qualitativeboundaries.In spite of his insistence that tradition changes ceaselessly, Shils offers an unambiguous, basal definition: "in its barest, most elementarysense . . . it is anything which is transmittedor handed down from the past to the present" (1981:12). To distinguish tradition from "fashion," Shils (1981:15) posits objectivelyverifiabletemporalcriteria: "it has to last over at least three generations . . . to be a tradition." Change

TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS

275

in of elements leave that itselfis discussed termsof the accretion new cultural form.As Shils(1981:14) otherpiecesin recognizably it, phrases the unchanged in combination with otherelements elements"of tradition "essential "persist but it is whichchange, whatmakes a tradition thatwhatarethoughtto be the . identicalat essentialelementsare recognizable . . as being approximately successive steps." The notionof an approximate identitysuggestschange,howeverminimal, new anddifferent? One doesit not becomesomething but if anobjectchanges is to invokeorganicmetaphors, suggestthat to way to escapethis dilemma traditionsare like organismsthat grow and change while yet remaining Shils does not resortto this devicebut, as we will show, the themselves. in theories tradition. of For is analogy a commonelement nationalistic organic the momentwe wish onlyto pointout thatthe notionof approximate identity As DavidSchneider has suggested, the problems. (1968:67) posesinescapable is that the boundwith viewingcultural phenomena naturalistically problem and of Havaries suchthingsareinevitably "fuzzy" forboth actors observers. chosento describe socialfactsasif theywerenatural objects,one is embaring rassedto find that one cannotdefinitively bound them in spaceand time, suchboundedness necessary satisfy understanding whata is to our of although natural objectis. of Both the scholarlyand commonsense understandings traditionhave that by by presumed a societyis identified its traditions, a core of teachings handed down fromthe past. The veryidentityof a societyrestson this conAs tinuityof thepastwith thepresent. Shilswrites:"It wouldnot be a society if it did not haveduration. mechanisms reproduction it the duraof The give tion which permitsit to be definedas a society"(1981:167).Shilsdoes not claimthat the legacyof the pastis immutable, he stresses an essential but that This modifications. is the fuzzyboundovertime throughout identitypersists of aries writ large.In a sectiontitled"The Identity Societies through problem notesthatin spiteof ceaseless Time," Shils(1981:163) change,"eachsociety do remainsthe same society. Its members not wake up one morningand discover areno longerlivingin, let us say, Britishsociety."This unity they an froma shared tradition: leaves objective overtimederives "Memory deposit in tradition.... It is thischainof memory of the tradition and whichassimilatesit thatenables societies go on reproducing to themselves whilealsochanging" (1981:167). The notionof an "objective to deposit"is fundamental the commonsense of tradition,andit provides tellingcontrastto our view of a understanding as tradition symbolically constituted. muchas Shilsandotherscholars As have refined concept tradition, one "ineluctable" to usea wordthat the of the fact, Shilsfavors,is that the past leavessome objectively definable a inheritance, "substantive content"(1981:263). Shils'sdiscussion the processes change of of in tradition reveals drawbacks his paradigm, the of which in spiteof its apbears striking resemblance Kroeber'shistoricalto parent sophistication model. Shils (1981:273ff.)even invokesthe same processes of particularist

276

RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

addition,amalgamation, diffusion,absorption, changeidentified Kroeber: by fusion. Shils recognizes that traditions content, and that usuallyhave ideological views of the past may be changedthroughself-conscious He interpretation. notes(1981:195) the "perceived" is "plastic"and"capable being that of past reformed humanbeings living in the present."And he retrospectively by movementsoften changethe traditions recognizesthat nationalist they athe real Nonetheless, differentiates and"fictitious" temptto revive(1981:246). He nationalist versions tradition, exof for traditionality (1981:209). contrasts with "actually traditions" Shilsexplores ample, existingsyncretic (1981:246). the breadth depthof the received and of Yet, asin the understanding tradition. works of priortheorists,tradition Shils'sframework the qualities in has of and boundedness. spite of Shils'sinsistence In that tradition congivenness a tinuallychanges,there is no doubt that in his formulation real, essential tradition exists apartfrominterpretations that tradition. of It is at thispointthatwe takeissuewith the naturalistic of conception tradition. We suggestthat thereis no essential, boundedtradition; tradition a is modelof the pastandis inseparable the interpretation tradition the from of in action may refer to the past, but to "be present.Undeniably,traditional about"or to referto is a symbolic rather thannatural and relationship, as such it is characterized discontinuity well as by continuity as by (Handler 1984).It is by now a truismthatcultural the traditions attempt revivals to change they revive(cf. Linton1943:231).We would broaden insightandarguethat this to the inventionof traditionis not restricted such self-conscious projects. the ongoing reconstruction traditionis a facet of all sociallife, of Rather, but constituted. Thisconclusion grown has whichis not natural symbolically in and of and out of ouranalyses national ethnicidentification Quebec Hawaii. of These ethnographic materials offer a range of representations tradition, fromthe obviousto fromthe most self-conscious the apparently unconscious, and to inherited, therefore genly reconstructive thosethatseemto be naively traditional. uinely in Tradition Quebec Creating to in can The statusof tradition Quebec onlybe understood reference the by of of characteristic the areasincethe conquest New France ethnicopposition in doomed(thewordis obviously ideologiby the British 1760.The Conquest to statuswithinCanada, Quebecois minority callyweighted)French-speaking The signifias which developed a predominantly territory. English-language of Quebecois canceof this minoritystatuslies not in the oppositional quality identities conare collectiveself-definition-after most ethnicor national all, to collectiveothers-but, rather,in its characteristic structedin opposition as defensiveness. Surrounded, Quebecoissay, by a sea of anglophones, of fromthe beginnings of collective ideologies identityhavebeenconcerned, to in nationalism the early19thcentury, protectandpreserve French-Canadian

TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS

277

national cultureandtraditions of and, indeed,the existence the groupitself. in Quebecois nationalist The relationship ideologybetweenvisionsof the and on nation,on the one hand,andof culture,tradition, heritage, the other, in socialfact, and is crucial our thesis.Nationalism Quebecis not a unitary to in nationalistideologieshave variedand proliferated relationto changing circumstances historical sociopolitical and (Dion 1975;Fenwick1981).Yet all versionssharean understanding the nation as a boundedentity whose of distinctiveness dependsupon nationalculture,tradition,and heritage.This in ideais, of course,deeplyingrained Westernsocialscienceas well as in nationalist or units,be they nations,cultures, ethnicgroups, thought;collective are envisioned consistingof all those individual as humanbeings, and only and those, who sharesufficient traits, traditions, valuesboth to bind them and themculturally fromoutsiders. Suchshared features socially to distinguish are thought to producea field of socialinteraction that is integrated a and distinctiveness characteristic of individual both cultural culture-bearers of and the collectivity.In this ideological shared cultureand traditions perspective, establish nationas a bounded the national distinctiveness which unit, creating in turnbothdemonstrates guarantees and national existence. Quebecois As informants "we area nationbecause havea culture." we it, phrased Thisindigenous to that insightis central the analysis follows,whichis based carried between1976and 1983. This research out focused on uponfieldwork of national bothto ideologicalwith attention Quebecois identity, conceptions discourse to the moreinformal and of ly self-conscious perceptions peoplein it clearthatpeople'sunderstanding dailylife. As fieldwork progressed became of "nation" in relationto "culture," "tradition,"and "heritage"was a in crucial element theirconstruction a national of identity.In theirdiscussions reliedupon a seriesof metaphors establish that national boundedness as they of the boundedness a natural are object.Thesenaturalistic metaphors usedat in threelevelsof abstraction reference (1) the collectivityas an entity, a to: as "collective individual," LouisDumonthascalledit (1970:33); the col(2) as a "collectionof individuals"(Dumont 1970:33);and (3) the lectivity human individuals as constitute colthe who, in theircapacity culture-bearers, lectiveindividual.1 of the collective individual a living creature as Metaphors are commonboth in ideological and pronouncements in less self-conscious discourse. example,peoplespeakof national For will, soul, and destiny,or and speakof the nationas a tree, a knight, a peasant, so on. Suchmetaphors endow the nationwith the boundedness integrityof an organism,sugand in particular, abilityto makepolitical the choicesas a unifiedcollecgesting, tivity. Thus when Quebecoisspeakof the nationas a living creature they createa rhetorically senseof a complete self-contained and powerful entityset off equallyagainstits environment this case, the nationalterritory) and (in other suchentities(othernations). Envisioningthe nation as a collection of individuals,Quebecoishave recourse to a second naturalistic metaphor, that of the national the species-"l'homo (Rioux que'be&censis" 1974:3).In this metaphor, nationis a

278

RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

naturaltype, or species, and each individualmemberof the nation is a the of representative the type. Thus, as a collectionof individuals nationis in is to bounded the way that a species oftenimagined andnaturally precisely sharea set of traitsthat who be bounded,for it is constituted individuals by To the themfromothertypesof individuals. imagine coldefinitively separate the as a specieseliminates problemof fuzzy boundaries: peoplecan lectivity of eitheris or is not a member the nation-is or is not claimthatanyindividual and or Thereareno ambiguous divided a "typicalQuebecois." affiliations, the boundedas a natural is nation, as a collectionof individuals, as definitively and Quebecois attemptto define Finally,when peoplespeakof individual what it is that constitutestheir "quebecitude," they resortonce againto if to the findit difficult, not impossible, describe naturalistic They metaphors.2 in differ terms-how Quebecois of differences individuals precise group-based see as fromEskimos. fromFrench, fromAmericans, Quebecois themselves bedifferentfrom the people of other nationsbecauseeach Quebecoisining and Yet dividual culture,traditions, heritage. it is difQuebecois "possesses" themfrom the traitsthatdistinguish to specify particular ficultformostpeople other nationaltypes. Speaking French,for example,distinguishes Quebecois of but fromotherNorth Americans, in most otheraspects dailylife definitive French does are differences less easyto isolate.On the otherhand, speaking which leadsto attempts fromotherfrancophones, not distinguish Quebecois French. Most people of characteristics Quebecois to isolatethe distinguishing of that the canenunciate premise differences cultureandtraditions distinguish the frompeopleof othernations,but cannotspecify contentof naQuebecois of in tionaldifferences anydetail.In the absence suchspecification, often they of andspeak the "Latinblood" of fallback,again,on naturalistic metaphors, land or the Quebecois, of the indelible imprintthatbirthin a particular leaves like are In sum, if Quebecois different,it is due to substances on a person. to bloodandland,andeventslikebirth,all of whichareconceived be natural. and both are of hereof the naturalization culture tradition: We mightspeak are traditions thus whose culturally "in the blood" of individuals, unique of the metaphors the nationas a living to natural them. In similarfashion, and creature as a natural speciesallow culture,tradition,and heritageto be discussthe nationas thoughit were a person When Quebecois naturalized. as characteristicsa of anddestiny,theyspeak its distinguishing with soul,will, individual in the (collective) that has been "fixed" duringa "personality" of Or, imaginethe growthandmaturation. when Quebecois process personal in characteristics termsof natural nationas a species,they explainits specific nationalhistory into a Such rhetorictransforms selectionand adaptation. natural historyin which an isolatedgroupof settlersbecame"fixed" in its allowspeopleto both to adaptation the New World. Establishing metaphors claim that what has been fixed will not and cannotchange;a set of basic to the or dispositions traitsestablishes nationas an entityin relation all other mustbuilduponthisbase.To andany futuredevelopments national entities,
species.

TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS

279

other changethe basewoulddestroythe national entity,makingit something it thanwhat it hasbeen. In sum, in the worldview of Quebecois nationalists, is assumed that the nation has an essentialidentity, a core of fixed to that characteristics makesits existence natural analogous that of a bounded object. of While the foregoingdiscussion nationalist ideology may seem either or to that suchdiscourse basicto the abstruse quaint,it is important realize is And this image nationalists entertain aboutthemselves. that Quebecois image for has is not remotefrom everyday consciousness, nationalism consistently concernfor Quebecois been a prominent sincethe early19th century.Given of of suchanideology,andthe defensive posture Quebecois keenlyaware their in therehaslong beena self-conscious status NorthAmerica, concern minority to preserve culture traditions, whatQuebecois lepatrimoine and or call national As the historian MasonWadehas written, (heritage).
Nowhere in North Americais the cult of the past strongerthan in FrenchCanada ... French Canadahas a senseof tradition unique in North America, and the FrenchCanadianslive in and on their past to a degree which it is difficult for English-speakingNorth Americans to appreciate. [1968:1]

The cult of tradition followsunderstandably the premises nationalist from of nationalculture ideology,but it suggestsa counter-intuitive interpretation: andtradition comeafterthe fact.Nationalist the of ideologyrequires existence a culture-"we area nationbecause havea culture"-but mostpeopleare we hardput to specify traitsandtraditions constitute culture.It then the that that becomesthe businessof specialists discoverand even to invent national to and culture,traditions, heritage. The inventionof tradition,typifiedduringthe late 1970sby widespread concernfor le patrimoine, been a prominent has activityin Quebecsincethe mid-19thcentury(Handler Tradition inventedbecause is necesis it 1983a). in sarily reconstructed the present, notwithstandingsome participants' of suchactivities beingpreservation as rather thaninvention understanding (cf. Forexample,a commonmethodfor presenting tradiHymes1975:355-356). tion to the publicis the folkloredisplay demonstration. festivals, or At fairs, and museums,folk dancesare performed folk craftsexhibitedagainsta and the as farmbackdrop representing interiorof what is presented a traditional house. MariusBarbeau claimedto have organized first such the (1920:1-5) in performances Canada.FollowingBritishand Frenchmodelsof folklore Barbeau his colleagues and two demonstrations, presented "publicsoirees"of folkloreperformances Montreal 1919. Theirgoal was both to teachthe in in urban folk of and publicaboutthe indigenous sources theirculture to generate andotherwise) folklore for research. Barbeau's of support (financial description these soireesshows their conceptualization stagingto havebeen nearly and identical performances to witnessed60 yearslater.What hadchanged,howof ever,by the 1970s,was the important as acpresence government a central

280

RICHARDHANDLERandJOCELYN LINNEKIN

tor in the preservationof tradition. Since the early 1960s the government of Quebec has devoted significantresourcesto the preservationof historic buildings, the creationof an inventory of patrimonialobjects and their collection in museums, and more recently, to the promotion of St. Jean-Baptiste as the day du nationalholidayof Quebec and of a semaine patrimoine (heritageweek) featuring special museum exhibits, public school projects, and the like. In his study of nationalism and folklore in Finland, Wilson (1976:120) observesthat "celebrationsof folklore . . . became folklore ceremoniesthemselves, ritual dramasin which time was suspendedand modern Finns could participatein the events of the past." This remark could be applied to the Quebec case, but with an important clarification.The performersand spectators at Quebecois folklore celebrations do not so much participate in a preservedpast as they invent a new one. The public presentationof privatelife is a juxtaposition that suggests why we must speak of invention ratherthan preservation.First, those elements of the past selectedto representtraditional culture are placedin contexts utterly differentfrom their prior, unmarkedsettings. A family party presented on stage, or a child's toy immured in a museum, are not, in these new contexts, quite the same things that they were in other settings;juxtaposed to other objects, enmeshedin new relationships of meaning, they become something new. Second, these newly contextualized pieces of tradition take on new meanings for the researchers,craft-workers, dancers, spectators, and consumers who participate in folklore activities. Reconstructedor reinterpretedas "tradition," they come to signify national identity. Whoever dancedthose dancesor used those toys in the past did not do so with a self-conscious awareness that such activity signified "quebecitude." Finally, the invention of tradition is selective: only certain items (most often, those that can be associated with a "natural," preindustrialvillage life) are chosen to representtraditionalnationalculture, and other aspectsof the past are ignored or forgotten. In sum, traditionsthought to be preservedare createdout of the conceptualneeds of the present. Tradition is not handeddown from the past, as a thing or collection of things; it is symbolicallyreinventedin an ongoing present. Nor are Quebecois unawareof these subtleties of reinterpretation.In 1978 the government brought together citizens and specialiststo reconsiderits activities in the Place Royale project. The government had begun the historical reconstructionof Place Royale (Quebec City) in the early 1960s. The project became the largest of its kind in Quebec, and as it developed it encountered growing criticism concerning the wisdom of transforming a residential neighborhood into a museum for tourists. The 1978 colloquium debated the various models of urban renewal and historical reconstructionthat had infavoredrestorationsthat fluenced the project. For example, some participants would privilege the French colonial era to the exclusion of all other periods, while others argued for recognition of the evolution of architecturalstyles. Still others, citing the provisionalityof all historicalinterpretations,insisted that restorationbe "reversible," so that future research,which might change

TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS

281

of into people'sunderstanding the historyof the area,couldbe incorporated du the presentation the site (Gouvernement Quebec1979). of of tradition,as well as the commerExplicitdiscussions how to preserve cialization and stagingof folklore,might be takenas instances spurious of of suchas thoserecognized Shilsin hisdiscussion the "fictitious" tradition, by at of pastscreated nationalist by ideologues the expense "actually existingsyncretictraditions" to and spurious (1981:209, 246). Yet it is impossible separate In both empirically theoretically. the Quebeccase,for and genuinetradition, is as example,the work of folklore popularizers almostas traditional tradition itself. Almost from the beginningof European observers have colonization, writtenaboutfolklife in Quebec,andtheirdescriptions becomeabsorbed have into the senseof identitythatthe folkentertain aboutthemselves. Folklore collectorshavebeenat workin French sincethe mid-19th Canada at least century 1961;Carpenter (Lacourciere 1979),andtheirwork too hasbeenthoroughly disseminated amongQuebecois,ruralas well as urban.Thus when the anMinerset out to describe folk culture St. Denis, he Horace the of thropologist learned it was not naivein the way somehadimagined: just got track that "I of a story-teller a neighboring in fromthe parish,"he wrote RobertRedfield to he field, "andamarranging get someof his old tales,anything hasnot gotten out of a book" (Miner1937).And Madeleine Doyon foundthatherrural themselves about whose versionof a particular informants arguedamong In that dance "authentic" was ever (1950:172). sum,it is doubtful Quebec exwereunreflectively handed down in istedas a folk societyin whichtraditions form (Handler unchanging 1983a). If genuine,naive,or pristine traditions difficultto discover are empirically, areevenmoredifficult justifytheoretically. creation tradition to The of in they motivatedas it is by nationalist Quebec, ideology,points to the theoretical flaws in the traditional social-scientific of understanding traditionfor, like socialscience,nationalist on the notionof societybounded ideologydepends with both societyandtradition understood objects as or tradition, by objective setsof objects the natural in In otherwords,the social-scientific world. model of tradition, like the nationalistic,rests on a naturalistic and atomistic in of traditional are paradigm whichthoseaspects sociallife thatareconsidered endowed with (or reduced the statusof natural But in ourview, to to) things. betweengenuineandspurious traditions to overlookthe is posit a distinction fact that sociallife is alwayssymbolically nevernaturally constructed, given. All handing and down, for example,depends uponthe use of symbols is thus reinvented the present.In the limitingcasewe mayunreflecin continuously someactionexactlyas we learned fromour parents; the it tivelyperform yet is with pastperformances more and, performance nevercompletely isomorphic of is underimportant,our understanding the performance a present-tense from the context and meaningsof the present.To do standing,generated is and somethingbecauseit is traditional alreadyto reinterpret, hence to changeit.

282

RICHARDHANDLERand LINNEKIN JOCELYN

in Tradition Modern Hawaii It may seem paradoxicalto speak of tradition in modern Hawaii, the most Westernized society in Polynesia. What links to the past could survivein this land of McDonald's restaurantsand mass tourism? In the islands today, anthropologists and Hawaiiansalike are engaged in a quest for Hawaiian tradition, which is simultaneously a search for Hawaiian cultural identity. The varying definitions of authenticity that have resulted from this pursuit reveal that "traditional" is not an objective attribute of cultural practices, but a designation that is always assigned in the present. Modern definitions of Hawaiian traditionrange from the eclectic version promotedby Hawaiiannationalists to the presumably more authentic life-style of small rural communities. This discussion of Hawaiian tradition is based on fieldwork in Keanae, a taro-growing village on the windward side of Maui that is widely consideredto representtraditionalHawaiianlife. The nationalistexperienceis a more obvious exampleof a traditionconstructedaccordingto the demandsof ethnic politics, but the rurallife must be examined as a possible limiting case for our thesis: a naively inherited, unselfconscioustradition, containing much that is handed down from the past. In searchof an authenticculturalidentity, nationalistmovements frequently employ traditionto challengeratherthan to "ratify" (Williams 1977:116) the social and political status quo. The Hawaiianculturalrevivallooks to ruralsettlements such as Keanaefor examplesof genuine tradition. The symbolicvalue of such communities is enhanced because most Hawaiians today are citydwellers with more than their shareof socialproblems(Howard 1974:x). The currentconception of Hawaiian identity does not dependupon biological descent, but is based on the premise of a sharedbody of customs handeddown from the past. Yet for most Hawaiians, alienatedfrom the land and the rural life-style, the content of that traditionhas been problematic.Becauseof a long history of intermarriagewith other ethnic groups, very few Hawaiians can claim "pure" Hawaiian ancestry. And until the culturalrevival, few but the elderly were fluent in the Hawaiian language. Hawaiian nationalismbegan as an urban movement in the late 1960s, primarily attracting young partHawaiians, and following models establishedin Americanethnic politics. The nationalistshave explicitly linked their struggle to that of other colonized and dispossessed peoples: Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Micronesians (Protect Kaho'olawe 'Ohana 1981:17). The focal symbols of Hawaiian nationalism have varying relationshipsto past cultural practices. Initially emphasizing the Hawaiian language and Hawaiiana, a selection of crafts and performancearts, the culturalrenaissance came to focus on tradition as represented the life-style of ruralHawaiians. by and demanded Politically, the movement has focused on the land, the 'aina,3 reparationsfor the lands that commoner Hawaiians lost in the last century. The taro plant, source of the staplepoi,4 is featuredprominentlyin the movement's publications. The archetypeof the despoiled Hawaiian landscapehas

TRADITION,GENUINEOR SPURIOUS

283

becomethe barren, uninhabited islandof Kahoolawe, usedfor navalbombing sinceWorldWarII. Protestors occupied islandseveral have the times, practice on the basisof folk legendsthat it is sacred ground.Historically, asserting claimto sacredness tenuous.Early is Kahoolawe's sources the portray islandas a desolate inhospitable and it was a penalcolonyin the early19thcenplace; tury (Kuykendall 1938:125-126),andwas laterleasedas a cattleranchuntil confiscated use as a bombingtarget(Ritte andSawyer1978:113). is not for It the facts of Kahoolawe's historythat have imbuedit with its present-day as a politicaland culturalsymbol.Kahoolawe becomethe emhas meaning bodimentof the Hawaiianland. As such its significance Hawaiians for is but thismeaning derives fromthe modern eventhoughit undeniable, context, makesreference an idealized to past (Linnekin 1983). Anotherfocusof Hawaiian nationalism the voyageof the double-hulled was canoeHokule'afromHawaiito Tahitiin 1976. Althoughconceived haole by as settle(white)scholars a test of the accidental voyaging theoryof Polynesian was cultural revival a celebraas ment, the project embraced the Hawaiian by tion of Hawaiianidentity. The canoe'sdesigner,Herb Kane, was a halfHawaiian in who was broughtup and educated the Midwest,and only returnedto Hawaii in 1972 (Finney1979:21).Yet he identifiedhis "home valley"as Waipioon the islandof Hawaii(Kane1976:475),thusconsciously to settlement that,likeKeanae, recognized area is as linkinghimself anancient a stronghold Hawaiian of tradition. Kaneproclaimed the voyagingcanoe that was "the central artifact Polynesian of culture"(Finney 1979:29),andin a National article(Kane1976),portrayed Hokule'a'svoyageas the the Geographic of reenactment a time-honored Hawaiian tradition. canoe's The was launching marked carefully researched ceremonies attempted recreate that to ancient by Hawaiian from P. wereon rites;anthropologists the Bernice BishopMuseum handto validate authenticity the proceedings. Hawaiian the of One participant wore a full-head maskcopiedfroma 1779engraving JohnWebber, gourd by the artist who sailedwith CaptainCook (Kane 1976:472).A kava circle modeledon the kavaritualof Samoawas incorporated laterceremonies into Hawaiians drank mildlyintoxicating the but 'awa,5 theydid (Finney1979:31). not make a socialceremonyof consumingit, as did Fijiansand Samoans. Kane'sarticle such or kavabowl, portrays a ritual,usinga largeFijian Samoan with a captionbeginning"In ritesunpracticed generations. ..." for The aboveexamples demonstrate nationalist that versionsof tradition are selective maybe consciously and to in Is shaped promote solidarity the present. therea moregenuine,unselfconscious Hawaiian tradition be foundin the to islands? of Islanders all nationalities believethat traditional Hawaiian culture in survives a few remotecommunities Maui,Niihau,Molokai,andin Kona on on the island of Hawaii. The residentsidentify themselvesas kama'aina, "children the land," the descendants the commonpeople,anddescribe of of a life basedon fish and poi, the traditional Keanae one of the few is staples. in whereHawaiians retained have of places the islands ownership landandstill taro.In manyways, of course,Keanae's is superficial. No grow traditionality

284

RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

have one subsistssolelyon fish andpoi; most householders full-timesalaried sourceof income.Rice as jobs andgrow tarofor the market a supplementary has supplanted as the most commonlyservedstaple,and some elderly poi eat residents havegivenup tarofarming poi no moreoftenthana resident who life Keanae for of Honolulu.Nevertheless, Hawaiians, represents "in the real old style," and an integralcultural identity. their lifestylefrom that of outsiders, differentiate When Keanae villagers of of fish andpoi, andthe practice exchange-in-kind Keanae, ("In they speak transactions commercial as opposedto the impersonal, you give, don't sell") in as carried in town. Andit is truethatexchange-in-kind practiced Keanae on to bearsstrikingresemblance the forms of gift giving described Marcel by are Mauss(1967) for "archaic"societies.Interpersonal relationships played commodities: out in cycles of reciprocity pork, fish, involvingPolynesian bananas,service(see Linnekin1984). For villagersand outsidersalike, the of enactment traditionin Keanaeis the luau,the Hawaiian most dramatic feast. The luau is today understoodas a quintessentially redistributive is Hawaiian activity,andKeanae knownas a placewherepeopleknow how to and A "make a luau" properly. luau entailsthe preparation, consumption, are of of of largequantities food. Workparties familyandfriends givingaway to dishesthattheyconsider be in advance, for preparing days occupied several Hawaiian.The accountsof Kamakau and traditional distinctively (1964:13, andMalo(1951:87-88,151-153, 157-158)revealthat luaufoods are 96-98) to related pre-Christian indeedhistorically Manyof today'sconvenpractices. ritual offeringsof the Hawaiian tional luau dishes recreatethe standard in in pig, roasted the underground religion,whichwas abolished 1819:kalua food The areexamples. most popular taro-coconut oven, andkulolo, pudding, bundlesof greensand steamed luau workersis laulaus, used to compensate in leaves.Offeringsmadeto the eitherpork or beef, wrapped ti (cordyline) in wrapped ti leaves. gods were similarly reof the foodsthatweight today'sluautablesarethusdemonstrably Many color. redwas a ritually In latedto pastpractices. the Hawaiian high religion, a to One of the conventional offerings the godswas the kumu, redfish. K-um-u without lomiis not servedat luaustoday,but a luauwould not be complete lomisalmon."Lomi" salmonis madefromthe red fleshof imported,salted crushed betweenthe fingersandmixedwith tomatoes, ice, salmon,massaged the are andgreenonions.All theseingredients foreignintroductions; certainly are recent.Very few modernHawaiians awarethat lomi salice is relatively for a mon is probably surrogate the kiumu fish; indeed,for Hawaiians today and is this historical relationship irrelevant, lomi salmonis just as traditional, as by just as meaningful, kulolo or laulaus.A luauis also marked slack-key musicalstyles, but introduced and ukuleleplaying. Both represent guitar islandersof all nationalities recognize these activitiesas characteristically Hawaiian. tradiinherited for a definable, The luauis certainly candidate an objectively naiveaboutthe luau'ssignificance; are Hawaiians not tion. But Keanae they

TRADITION,GENUINEOR SPURIOUS

285

tie laulausby splittingthe stem of the cordylinebecauseit is definitively a to Hawaiian do so. Theyarenot evennaiveaboutexchange-in-kind,practice an most closelyapproximates unselfconscious that perhaps heritage.Keanae of their statusas upholders Hawaiian of are tradition; villagers not unaware This identityhas most have chosena life that they perceiveas traditional. overat leastthe pasthundred yearsthroughan ongoinginteraction developed with the largersociety. The windwardareasof the islandswere calledthe or kua'aina "backland." A secondary meaningfor this term is "ignorant, uninstructed Early people"(Andrews 1865:296). people. . . the back-woods and missionaries viewed the Keanaeregion as backward prone to similarly Inaccessible landuntil the late 1920swhen the statehighway recidivism. by was completed,the remotewindwardcoast of Maui attracted early travel 1910;Hardy1895).Morerecentwriters,who sawit as "picturesque" (Ayres Hawaiianlife-style ly, a Honolulujournalistin searchof the traditional a storyon Keanae "the Hawaiithat usedto be" (Lueras as published 1975). is a The community noted on touristmapsas an officialattraction; Hawaii VisitorsBureaumarkerused to stand alongsidethe highway overlooking Keanae with the legend, "Hawaiian village." and The largersociety'snotionsof tradition cultural identitythus become is And this influence not restricted self-image. partof the ruralcommunity's tend to to the modernera, when nationalists, tourists,and politicalleaders of traditional the idealize rural"folk." The evolution Keanae's identitycanbe of at traced leastto the early19thcentury,andthe development a country/city in use that contrast is todayembodied the villagers' of the terms opposition-a the "inside" and "outside" to differentiate rural countryside,inhabited fromthe townswherewhitesandOrientals predomprimarily Hawaiians, by and inate.In the historical betweenKeanae the largersociety,the interchange mostimportant recentdevelopment beenthe positivevalueattached the has to term "traditional," rather than which now connotespurityandauthenticity rural ignorance.Although the content of the categorical oppositionshas alteredover time, it is unlikelythat Keanae were everpristineand villagers that theiridentityin terms unselfconscious, is, thattheyeverfailedto interpret of a widersocialcontext.Todaytarogrowingandexchange-in-kind objecare tified as they areused to definethe Hawaiian have identity.Thesepractices becomea means whichmodern Hawaiians differentiate themselves fromthe by islands'otherethnicgroups. versions Hawaiian of and tradition-the nationalist the Seemingly disparate in influence another; one both rural-converge Hawaiitoday.The two images variants containelementsof inventionandconscious construction well as as to Traditionis never wholly correspondences previousHawaiianpractices. nor is it ever wholly unrelated the past. The opposition to unselfconscious, betweena naivelyinherited tradition one that is consciously and is shaped a false dichotomy.Traditional activitieslike preparing laulausor buildingan oven with thepastthata scholar discover, can underground mayhaveaffinities but they need not. The crucialpoint for our purposes that theirvalueas is

286

RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

traditional relationto the past. symbolsdoes not dependupon an objective in the voyagingcanoe'slaunching Like the kavaceremony rites, traditional The borrowed. scholar objectthatsuchcustoms may practices be recently may but arenot genuinely traditional, theyhaveas muchforceandas muchmeanfor theirmodern as artifacts canbe traced that ing practitioners othercultural to is to irrelevant the directly the past.The originof cultural practices largely of tradition; is alwaysdefined the present.It is not in authenticity experience that or as Rather,thelatteris pastness givenness defines something traditional. an assigned an arbitrary rather thanan objecsymbolic designation; meaning tive quality.
Conclusion

We havearguedthat the dominant social-scientific of understanding tradition is built upon a naturalistic somewould restrict the metaphor. Although of metaphor poeticlanguage,its rhetorical to forcecan sway persuasiveness as scientificdiscourse well. The prevailing conceptionof tradition,both in an commonsenseandin socialtheory,hasenvisioned isolable bodyor coreof is to traitshanded downfromthe past.Tradition likened a natural unchanging in time, andhavinga molecular structure. space,enduring object,occupying is modeled aftera sinceit is defined a distinctive tradition, similarly by Society, and Thisnaturalistic knowable. natural discrete, objectively object-bounded, view of tradition,and of societyas constituted tradition,has dominated by Westernsocialthoughtat leastsincethe timeof Edmund Burke,who was the first moderntheoristof tradition.In his attackon the FrenchRevolution, both the stateandsocietyto an "antientedifice,"a "nobleand Burkelikened to renovated recastle"(1968:106,121)which couldbe repeatedly venerable had to mainforeverthe same.According Burke,the Frenchrevolutionaries In and rather thanpreserving reforming. conactedunnaturally destroying by in adhered "the methodof nature the conductof to trast,Englishreformers decreed a permanent to "the modeof existence the state";theyrespected body of Likethe work of latertheorists of transitory parts"(1968:120). composed discussion dominated theideaof anobject-as concrete is Burke's tradition, by mainas as a castle,as natural a body-that changes incessantly nonetheless yet boundedness esand which presumes paradigm, Against the naturalistic is that "traditional" not is we arguethat tradition a symbolic sence, process: Whenwe insist but of phenomena an assigned an objective meaning. property that in that the pastis alwaysconstructed the present,we arenot suggesting to acts present-day andideashaveno correspondence the past. But we argue can that the relationof prior to unfoldingrepresentations be equallywell refer cultural as discontinuous continuous. termed representations to Ongoing has andin this sensethe present conof or takeaccount priorrepresentations, in is tinuity with the past. But this continuityof reference constructed the and of in and,asHerzfeld (1982:3)hasargued his account nationalism present,
tains an essential identity.

TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS

287

folklore in Greece, the constructionof continuity is never "a question of pure of fact." Rather, the establishment continuity dependson "the observer's. . . . . . about what traits really constitute acceptable. . . evipresuppositions dence for some sort of link." On the other hand, becausecontinuity is constructed, it includes an element of discontinuity. To refer to the past, to take account of or interpretit, implies that one is located in the present, that one is distancedor apartfrom the object reconstructed.In sum, the relationshipof is prior to present representations symbolicallymediated, not naturallygiven; it encompassesboth continuity and discontinuity. Thus we can no longer speakof traditionin terms of the approximateidentity of some objectivething that changeswhile remainingthe same. Instead,we must understandtradition as a symbolic process that both presupposespast symbolisms and creatively reinterpretsthem. In other words, traditionis not a bounded entity made up of bounded constituent parts, but a process of interpretation, attributing meaning in the present though making referenceto the past. To speakof traditionas a processbrings us close to the approachof Hymes and before him, to that of Sapir. Sapir'sdiscussion (1949) of genuine culture bears romantic overtones akin to those that motivate discussionsof genuine tradition as pristine folkways. But Sapir'snotion of genuinenessrefers to the possibilityof creativity.6Genuineculturesprovideindividualsboth with a rich corpus of pre-established(traditional) forms and with the opportunity to "swing free" (1949:322) in creativeendeavorsthat inevitablytransformthose forms. For Sapir,genuine culture has a dialecticalquality, for it embodies the seeds of its own transformation.Similarly, Hymes (1975:353-355) speaksof "a universaldialectic between the need to traditionalizeand other forces in social life" (those that he terms "situation" and "creativity"). Hymes chooses the term "traditionalization"to purge the concept of traditionof its static, naturalisticimplications. For Hymes, as for us, it is best to think of tradition as a process that involves continual re-creation. This understanding traditionimplies that society, commonly perceivedas of the largest unit of social reality, is, like tradition, a meaningfulprocessrather than a bounded object. Socialidentity is always formulatedin interactionwith others, and depends upon evolving distinctions between categories that are symbolicallyconstituted, a processthat Singer (1972:12) has dubbed "conversationsof images." Shils's "British society" is not an objectivelyascertainable entity but an attributionof identity. The Western ideology of tradition, with its correlativeassumptionof unique culturalidentity, has become an international political model that people all over the globe use to construct images of others and of themselves. In Quebec, patrimonialtraditions, self-consciously constructedby both indigenousand foreign observers,havebecome an integral component of the sense of national identity that Quebecois entertain about themselves. In Hawaii, the largersociety perceivesthe rurallife-style as a mirror of the Hawaiianpast, and country-dwellersin turn attributea new, traditional signification to previously unmarkedpractices. In both cases, the selfimage of ruralvillagersdevelopsthrough a dialoguewith a varietyof tradition-

288

RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

seekers, ranging from romanticjournalists to urban nationalists,not to mention social scientists. One of the majorparadoxesof the ideology of traditionis that attempts at cultural preservationinevitably alter, reconstruct, or invent the traditionsthat they are intended to fix. Traditionsare neither genuine nor spurious, for if genuine traditionrefersto the pristineand immutableheritage of the past, then all genuine traditionsare spurious.But if, as we have argued, traditionis always definedin the present, then all spurioustraditionsaregenuine. Genuine and spurious-terms that have been used to distinguishobjective when applied to social phenomreality from hocus-pocus-are inappropriate ena, which never exist apartfrom our interpretationsof them. Notes
We would like to thank Richard Bauman, Aletta Biersack, Daniel Segal, and Leo Van Hoey for providing valuable criticisms of earlierdrafts of this paper. Research in Quebec was funded in part by grants from the Danforth Foundation, Lake Forest College, and the University Consortium for Research on North America. Fieldwork in Hawaii from 1974 to 1975 was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (GS-39667) and a predoctoraltraining fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health. 1 Dumont's discussion of the cultural presuppositionsthat interrelatenationalism and individualismin modern Western culture is central to the analysis of nationalist ideology presented here. According to Dumont, "the nation is the normal form of the global society in the individualisticuniverse. That is to and individual" two things at once: a collection individuals a collective of say, it is in principle (1970:33; emin original). It is important to understandthat Dumont is here referringto indigenous conceptions phasis of what a nation is; he is not offering a scientific definition. 2 The idea of "quebecitude" was influenced by the celebration of "negritude" on the part of Frenchlanguage West Indian and African writers during the 1940s. As we argue below, such borrowings suggest that the self-imagesof national and ethnic groups around the world develop through mutual interaction; rather than isolated groups whose identity stems from particularhistorical experiences, we find an international sociopolitical discourse, shared by those who use it to proclaim their uniqueness. 3Diacritics and glosses for Hawaiian words are taken from Pukui and Elbert (1971). 4 Poi is a paste made by boiling and grinding the root of the taro plant. a 5 Known as kava in other Polynesian societies, 'awais Pipermethysticum, shrub related to pepper and native to the Pacific islands. The beverage is made from the root. 6 Sapir's use of the term "genuine" to indicate creative possibilities must be carefully distinguished from the more common understanding of genuine as meaning uncorrupted and pristine (cf. Handler 1983b). The notion of a genuine tradition attackedin this paper stems from the second concept of genuineness, not from Sapir's.

Cited References
Andrews, Lorrin 1865 A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language. Honolulu: Henry M. Whitney. Ayres, H. M. 1910 Through the Hana District of Maui. Honolulu Advertiser, 4 September, Sec. 2:1, 5. Barbeau, Marius 1920 Veillees du bon vieux temps. Montreal: G. Ducharme. Burke, Edmund 1968 Reflections on the Revolution in France. New York: Penguin Books.

TRADITION,GENUINEOR SPURIOUS

289

Carpenter, C. 1979 Many Voices: A Study of Folklore Activities in Canadaand Their Role in Canadian Culture. Ottawa: CanadianCentre for Folk Culture Studies, Paper No. 26. Dion, Leon 1975 Nationalismes et politique au Quebec. Montreal: Hurtubise HMH. Doyon, Madeleine 1950 Folk Dances in Beauce County. Journal of American Folklore 63:171-174. Dumont, Louis 1970 Religion, Politics, and Society in the IndividualisticUniverse. Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, pp. 31-45. Eisenstadt, S. N. 1973 Tradition, Change, and Modernity. New York: Wiley. Fenwick, Rudy 1981 Social Change and Ethnic Nationalism: An Historical Analysis of the Separatist Movement in Quebec. Comparative Studies in Society and History 23:196-216. Finney, Ben R. 1979 Hokule'a: The Way to Tahiti. New York: Dodd, Mead. Gouvernement du Quebec 1979 Colloque Place Royale, 16-17-18 novembre 1978: Les actes du Colloque. Quebec City: Ministere des affairesculturelles. Handler, Richard 1983a In Searchof the Folk Society: Nationalism and Folklore Studiesin Quebec. Culture 3(1):103-114. 1983b The Dainty and the Hungry Man: Literatureand Anthropology in the Work of Edward Sapir. In Observers Observed: Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork, ed. George Stocking, pp. 208-231. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1984 On Sociocultural Discontinuity: Nationalism and Cultural Objectification in Quebec. Current Anthropology 25:55-71. Hardy, F. W. 1895 PicturesqueMaui. Paradiseof the Pacific 8(7):97-98. Herzfeld, Michael 1982 Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the Making of Modern Greece. Austin: University of Texas Press. Howard, Alan 1974 Ain't No Big Thing. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Hymes, Dell 1975 Folklore's Nature and the Sun's Myth. Journal of American Folklore 88:345-369. Kamakau, Samuel M. 1964 Ka Po'e Kahiko: The People of Old. Edited by Dorothy B. Barrere. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Kane, Herb Kawainui 1976 A Canoe Helps Hawaii Recapture Her Past. National Geographic 149:468-489. Kroeber, A. L. 1948 Anthropology. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1778-1854. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lacourciere,Luc 1961 The PresentState of French-Canadian Folklore Studies.Journalof AmericanFolklore 74:373-382. Linnekin, Jocelyn 1983 Defining Tradition: Variations on the Hawaiian Identity. American Ethnologist 10:241-252. 1984 Children of the Land: Exchange and Status in a Hawaiian Community. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

290

RICHARDHANDLERandJOCELYN LINNEKIN

Linton, Ralph 1943 Nativistic Movements. American Anthropologist 45:230-240. Lueras, Leonard 1975 Keanae: The Hawaii That Used to Be. Honolulu Advertiser, 18 December:A3. Malo, David 1951 Hawaiian Antiquities. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Mannheim, Karl 1953 Conservative Thought. In Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology, ed. Paul Kecskemeti, pp. 74-164. New York: Oxford University Press. Mauss, Marcel 1967 The Gift. Translatedby Ian Cunnison. New York: Norton. Miner, Horace 1937 Letter to Robert Redfield, 20 January. Redfield papers. Regenstein Library, The University of Chicago. Protect Kaho'olawe 'Ohana 1981 Aloha 'Aina (newsletter). Winter. Kaunakakai,Molokai. Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert 1971 Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English, English-Hawaiian. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Rioux, Marcel 1974 Les Qu6becois. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Ritte, Walter, Jr., and Richard Sawyer 1978 Na Mana'o Aloha o Kaho'olawe. Honolulu: Aloha 'Aina o na Kiupuna,Inc. Rudolph, Lloyd I., and Susanne H. Rudolph 1967 The Modernity of Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sapir, Edward 1949 Culture, Genuine and Spurious. In Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, ed. David Mandelbaum, pp. 308-331. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schneider, David M. 1968 American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Shils, Edward 1971 Tradition. Comparative Studies in Society and History 13:122-159. 1981 Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Singer, Milton 1972 When a Great Tradition Modernizes. New York: Praeger. Smith, M. Estellie 1982 The Process of SocioculturalContinuity. Current Anthropology 23:127-141. Tipps, Dean C. 1973 Modernization Theory and the ComparativeStudy of Societies: A Critical Perspective. ComparativeStudies in Society and History 15:199-226. Wade, Mason 1968 The French Canadians, 1760-1967. New York: St. Martin's Press. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Williams, Raymond 1977 Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, William A. 1976 Folklore and Nationalism in Modern Finland. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lake ForestCollege Lake Forest,Illinois