|
Article Excerpt
In an earlier series of discussions on Melanesian property rights, (1) it was argued that Western ownership strategies tend to promote rights based on exclusion, while Melanesian strategies generally seek to expand the possibilities for inclusion. James Carrier (1998) rightly raised attention to the intellectual assumptions and interests that have shaped such distinctions: the enduring legacy of Maussian notions of gift societies that contain an inclusive model of property, that are compared with equally essentialised Western property constructs (cf. Carrier 1995; Gregory 1982). Marilyn Strathern's contributions have brought new light to bear on the relationship between different ownership practices and the ways that people construct and imagine social networks. Her argument is best articulated in her response to Bruno Latour's (1993) claims in We have never been modern. Latour argues that modern social networks are distinguished by their scale, whereas 'non-modern' social networks, apparently found in archetypically 'non-modern' societies like Papua New Guinea, are usually limited in length. But as Strathern argues, this neglects crucial differences in the ways that societies construct social networks, and ignores that fact that while 'technology might enlarge networks, proprietorship can be guaranteed to cut them down to size' (Strathern 1996: 531). That is, Western property claims usually require people to shorten or 'cut the network' in order to establish ownership. The division in terms of scale is largely contingent upon content: pure or homogenous networks, compared to heterogeneous or hybrid networks (Latour 1993: 11). The first instance falls within the domain of classical social network analysis, while the latter is an example of more recent actor-network theory, linking human and non-human entities. Nevertheless, network remains a relatively neutral phrase for interconnectedness. Moreover, when considered in relation to ownership, we find that all networks can all emphasise exclusivity over limitless incorporation.
Following Strathern's lead, Stuart Kirsch suggested that 'Melanesian social networks typically include all of the persons who have contributed to another's success, each of whom may later lay claim to their share of what ever is produced' (Kirsch 2004: 83). This abstraction drew upon events that occurred around the Lihir gold mine in Papua New Guinea, when Lihirian landowners claimed compensation from the mining company for environmental damages and the death of pigs. Supposedly when making compensation claims Lihirians, and other Melanesians, seek to keep the entire social network in view. This is contrasted with mining companies that often appeal to Western property rights that draw upon legalistic definitions and scientific explanations to shorten the network, limit liability and secure profits.
These distinctions, which we can place on a continuum of strategies, are intended to emphasise rather than essentialise difference; as Kitsch notes, both miners and Melanesians can adjust their social networks to suit contexts and desired outcomes (2001: 155). However, in such radically transformed circumstances this still potentially conceals important processes: as keen modernists, Lihirians have increasingly sought to limit ownership, particularly of the financial benefits and development associated with the mining project. Lihirians might include the company in their chain of implication when making compensation claims, or rely upon non-Lihirians for political and economic success--the strategic utilisation of an expansive network. But when it comes to actual ownership of any compensation, benefits, or achievements many Lihirians can now be guaranteed to cut the network.
Lihirians who receive royalties, compensation and other economic benefits would probably argue they have not severed their social connections in their attempt to control the flow of wealth (cf. Strathern 1979). Perhaps in one sense this is true, given that these Lihiriarts are known to host some of the most lavish customary feasts that continue cycles of reciprocity and increase the chains of indebtedness-transactions that underpin social reproduction and keep the network in view. Even so, they definitely seek novel ways to strategically manage these relationships in order to contain wealth within a limited sphere. Moreover, as money has entered the ceremonial economy it has sustained the cyclical image of exchange and relational continuity. Similarly, emerging forms of possessive individualism reveal the connection between different forms of wealth transaction, test the moral grounds of relationships and shape the ways that networks are perceived and employed. Over time many Lihirians have refined, and in some cases redefined, the 'rationales of ownership' and the boundaries of inclusion, coupled with a re-categorisation of 'non-Lihirians' in ways that ideologically shift notions of sociality, obligation and reciprocity.
In this article I address the 'property effects' that have arisen since mining began in the Lihir Islands in 1995. The shifting forms of sociality, both internally and externally, that surfaced through new economic relations reflect the contradictions that emerge through modernisation. Of particular interest are the ways in which Lihirian big men who traditionally relied upon their relationships with people outside their clan and the islands of Lihir--their extended networks through marriage and exchange-now seek to keep them from view. Unprecedented social changes, particularly unchecked migration, have brought these relationships into question. For many Lihirian men, wealth and status is no longer contingent upon maintaining these relationships. Consequently, the reclassification of outsiders has developed in tandem with a distinct sense of Lihirian ethnic identity: together they serve to exclude others.
These local level processes are paralleled in the relationship between Lihirians and the nation state. Regardless of any Lihirian arguments that suggest otherwise, the mine only exists through the mediating role of the state: like the extended traditional social networks that channel wealth and fame, Lihirians rely upon the state for mining riches. However, mining has empowered Lihirians as part of a wider national critique of the nation state in Papua New Guinea, which is seen to be corrupt at worst, and inefficient at best. Lihirians have challenged the state's authority to control their lives and mine related wealth. In doing so, they not only attempt to keep the state from view but simultaneously deny its legitimacy.
Effectively Lihirian leaders are reshuffling their immediate networks and simultaneously attempting to expand them in order to deal directly with international capital. The process is immediately insular and cosmopolitan: local networks are recalibrated and existing ties throughout the region are skipped over for more attractive connections abroad. This draws attention to a further paradox: although the state seeks to use the mining project to consolidate itself the mine is appropriated by Lihirians to provide a counterpoint to the state and its wide definition of relatedness embedded in the nation-making project--the creation of new (and often artificial) relationships through state processes of 'vertical encompassment' (Gupta and Ferguson 1992). Moreover, the income and benefit streams employed in the mining industry are critical, because they stipulate how widely and how narrowly benefits are to be distributed, and thus provide a critical base upon which Lihirians and non-Lihirians can build an image of entitlements, as landowners, community members, and citizens.
LIHIR AND ITS GOLD MINE
The Lihir Islands (Niolam, Mali, Masahet, Mahur) are situated off the east coast of mainland New Ireland. Although survival has never been contingent upon trade with neighbouring groups, Lihirians have strong historical exchange and marriage alliances throughout the region with people from Namatanai, Tanga and Tabar (Kaplan 1976). Lihirians are largely subsistence farmers, growing tapioca, yams, and sweet potatoes, and rear pigs and harvest small amounts of marine life. As common throughout the region, Lihir is a matrilineal society, with great importance placed upon mother's brothers, the close bond between same-sex cross-cousins, and avoidance taboos between uterine brothers and sisters (Bell a1935; Clay 1977: 47; Wagner 1986: 70). Lihir is divided into two moieties, each containing numerous clans with smaller lineage groups. Land and other property rights are generally reckoned through these matrilineal descent groups. These lineages tend to occupy single hamlets and leadership by big men (tohie) is primarily vested in the maintenance of the lineage's rihri (men's house) as a social institution and physical edifice, and the guidance, discipline and nurturance of its younger male members (Bainton 2008). These men's houses are the primary location for the performance of ritual feasts (kastom) that involve the exchange of pigs and shell money, and increasingly cash and commodities.
In Melanesia, group consciousness is not simply a product of the colonial era which drew arbitrary lines around places and routinely named and designated social units. It would be absurd to suggest that in pre-colonial times Lihirians (or other New Irelanders for that matter) lacked a concern for socio-cultural difference, or an awareness of similarity. (2) Nevertheless, despite variation throughout the region, differences are generally commensurate; they are usually intelligible in terms of common cultural and structural features. For instance, no two groups share the same feasting and exchange protocol, but it is taken for granted that other groups exchange and consume pigs, garden produce and shell valuables. Similarly, while each group has its own clan leaders and men's houses, or forms of esoteric knowledge and local epistemologies, these are never identical or put to the same use (see Eves 1998; Foster 1995a; Groves 1934, 1935; Powdermaker 1971 [1933]: 196-199). Familiarity with regional difference means most groups have always been able to find points of commonality or local equivalents. To...
|
