想象斐济乡村的现代性

Ethnology Pub Date : 2003-09-22 DOI:10.2307/3773833
Karen J. Brison
{"title":"想象斐济乡村的现代性","authors":"Karen J. Brison","doi":"10.2307/3773833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding ethnic identity in Fiji and elsewhere in the Pacific requires looking at the ways that individuals draw on ideologies to make sense of the particular circumstances of their lives. While national identity in Fiji is often defined in opposition to the West through reference to a romanticized premodern tradition, individual Fijians are more concerned with defining their identity vis-a-vis other villagers. When people justify their position within the indigenous Fijian community, they question and redefine both tradition and modernity. Modernity is experienced individually as contradictions between competing ideologies and local experience through idiosyncratic life circumstances. \"Modern\" and \"traditional\" are not opposites but creatively redefined as having much in common. (Fiji, modernity, postcolonialism, ethnic identity, Pacific) Much literature has examined the ways tradition in the Pacific is invented or imagined to define present identity and achieve contemporary goals (e.g. Keesing 1989; Lawson 1996; Linnekin 1990). This article follows Englund and Leach (2000), Riles (2001), and Robbins (2001) in suggesting that the ways Pacific people imagine modernity is just as crucial as the ways they invent tradition for constructing their sense of self. Modernity, in the form of increased flows of capital, commodities, ideologies, and images, is a state of the world; but, following Ferguson (1999) and Riles (2001), modernity, like the concept of tradition, is also a local construct, imagined in a variety of ways to make sense of particular life circumstances. Ferguson (1999) and Riles (2001) both argue that Third World peoples use constructs of modernity to define identities for themselves within local culture. Ferguson (1999) says that his Zambia informants in the 1980s sounded as if they had read 1950s sociology texts on modernization theory when they stressed the need for strong nuclear families, independent individuals, and the need to work hard and try new things in order to bring about economic development. While social scientists and Third World governments have largely rejected modernization theory, it lives on in the minds of those who grew up under the policies it shaped. Ferguson (1999) suggests that Zambians slip in and out of modernity as a distinctive \"style\" in order to position themselves in Zambian society; for instance, espousing nuclear families and avoiding the demands of rural relatives. Riles (2001) similarly argues that urban Fijian workers in NGOs define their identity within the Fijian community through an international \"aesthetic\" of modernity that constructs problems and approaches in terms of international concepts like the need for networks and for \"grids\" generating goals and plans for action. Both scholars suggest that modernity is constructed in imagination to create local identities (cf. Englund 2002). The life stories of several rural Fijians show that constructs of modernity are just as crucial to imagining identity as constructs of tradition. Examining how people use constructs of modernity to imagine their identities is important for understanding debates about the effects of colonization and globalization on Pacific identities. Some anthropologists (e.g., Barber 1997) argue that Third World postcolonials are trapped in a dynamic of trying to restore local control and pride by embracing romanticized, \"essentialist,\" ethnic identities. In Fiji, for instance, prominent government figures have rejected democracy based on common roll elections as inappropriate to a Fijian culture based on ranked vanua (chieftainships tied to particular pieces of land). This was part of an effort to protect Fijian control of land and government when many feared that unchecked economic competition would quickly relegate indigenous Fijians to the bottom of a national and world order (Keesing 1989; Lawson 1996). These ideas were apparently illustrated by a 2000 coup in Fiji that brought with it renewed calls to return to a Fijian tradition of chiefly control and ties to the land. …","PeriodicalId":81209,"journal":{"name":"Ethnology","volume":"08 1","pages":"335-348"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3773833","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imagining modernity in rural Fiji\",\"authors\":\"Karen J. Brison\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/3773833\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Understanding ethnic identity in Fiji and elsewhere in the Pacific requires looking at the ways that individuals draw on ideologies to make sense of the particular circumstances of their lives. While national identity in Fiji is often defined in opposition to the West through reference to a romanticized premodern tradition, individual Fijians are more concerned with defining their identity vis-a-vis other villagers. When people justify their position within the indigenous Fijian community, they question and redefine both tradition and modernity. Modernity is experienced individually as contradictions between competing ideologies and local experience through idiosyncratic life circumstances. \\\"Modern\\\" and \\\"traditional\\\" are not opposites but creatively redefined as having much in common. (Fiji, modernity, postcolonialism, ethnic identity, Pacific) Much literature has examined the ways tradition in the Pacific is invented or imagined to define present identity and achieve contemporary goals (e.g. Keesing 1989; Lawson 1996; Linnekin 1990). This article follows Englund and Leach (2000), Riles (2001), and Robbins (2001) in suggesting that the ways Pacific people imagine modernity is just as crucial as the ways they invent tradition for constructing their sense of self. Modernity, in the form of increased flows of capital, commodities, ideologies, and images, is a state of the world; but, following Ferguson (1999) and Riles (2001), modernity, like the concept of tradition, is also a local construct, imagined in a variety of ways to make sense of particular life circumstances. Ferguson (1999) and Riles (2001) both argue that Third World peoples use constructs of modernity to define identities for themselves within local culture. Ferguson (1999) says that his Zambia informants in the 1980s sounded as if they had read 1950s sociology texts on modernization theory when they stressed the need for strong nuclear families, independent individuals, and the need to work hard and try new things in order to bring about economic development. While social scientists and Third World governments have largely rejected modernization theory, it lives on in the minds of those who grew up under the policies it shaped. Ferguson (1999) suggests that Zambians slip in and out of modernity as a distinctive \\\"style\\\" in order to position themselves in Zambian society; for instance, espousing nuclear families and avoiding the demands of rural relatives. Riles (2001) similarly argues that urban Fijian workers in NGOs define their identity within the Fijian community through an international \\\"aesthetic\\\" of modernity that constructs problems and approaches in terms of international concepts like the need for networks and for \\\"grids\\\" generating goals and plans for action. Both scholars suggest that modernity is constructed in imagination to create local identities (cf. Englund 2002). The life stories of several rural Fijians show that constructs of modernity are just as crucial to imagining identity as constructs of tradition. Examining how people use constructs of modernity to imagine their identities is important for understanding debates about the effects of colonization and globalization on Pacific identities. Some anthropologists (e.g., Barber 1997) argue that Third World postcolonials are trapped in a dynamic of trying to restore local control and pride by embracing romanticized, \\\"essentialist,\\\" ethnic identities. In Fiji, for instance, prominent government figures have rejected democracy based on common roll elections as inappropriate to a Fijian culture based on ranked vanua (chieftainships tied to particular pieces of land). This was part of an effort to protect Fijian control of land and government when many feared that unchecked economic competition would quickly relegate indigenous Fijians to the bottom of a national and world order (Keesing 1989; Lawson 1996). These ideas were apparently illustrated by a 2000 coup in Fiji that brought with it renewed calls to return to a Fijian tradition of chiefly control and ties to the land. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":81209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethnology\",\"volume\":\"08 1\",\"pages\":\"335-348\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3773833\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethnology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/3773833\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3773833","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

要了解斐济及太平洋其他地区的族群认同,就必须检视个人如何利用意识形态来理解其生活的特定环境。虽然斐济的民族认同通常是参照浪漫化的前现代传统来界定,与西方相对立,但斐济人个人更关心如何界定自己与其他村民的认同。当人们为自己在斐济土著社区中的地位辩护时,他们质疑并重新定义了传统与现代。现代性是通过特殊的生活环境,作为相互竞争的意识形态和地方经验之间的矛盾而被个体体验的。“现代”和“传统”不是对立的,而是创造性地重新定义为有许多共同点。(斐济,现代性,后殖民主义,种族认同,太平洋)许多文献研究了太平洋地区的传统是如何被发明或想象的,以定义现在的身份和实现当代目标(例如Keesing 1989;劳森1996;Linnekin 1990)。本文遵循Englund和Leach (2000), Riles(2001)和Robbins(2001)的观点,认为太平洋人想象现代性的方式与他们创造传统的方式一样重要,以构建他们的自我意识。现代性以资本、商品、意识形态和形象流动的增加为形式,是一种世界状态;但是,继Ferguson(1999)和Riles(2001)之后,现代性,就像传统的概念一样,也是一种地方建构,以各种方式想象以理解特定的生活环境。Ferguson(1999)和Riles(2001)都认为第三世界人民使用现代性的结构来定义他们在当地文化中的身份。弗格森(1999)说,他的赞比亚线人在20世纪80年代,当他们强调需要强大的核心家庭,独立的个人,需要努力工作和尝试新事物,以实现经济发展时,听起来好像他们读了20世纪50年代关于现代化理论的社会学文本。虽然社会科学家和第三世界国家的政府在很大程度上拒绝了现代化理论,但它仍然存在于那些在它所塑造的政策下长大的人的脑海中。Ferguson(1999)认为,赞比亚人作为一种独特的“风格”进出现代性,以便在赞比亚社会中定位自己;例如,支持核心家庭,避免农村亲戚的要求。Riles(2001)同样认为,非政府组织的斐济城市工作者通过现代性的国际“美学”来定义他们在斐济社区中的身份,这种“美学”根据国际概念构建问题和方法,例如网络和“网格”的需求,从而产生目标和行动计划。两位学者都认为,现代性是在想象中构建的,以创造地方认同(cf. Englund 2002)。几个斐济农村人的生活故事表明,现代性的建构与传统的建构一样,对想象身份至关重要。研究人们如何使用现代性的结构来想象他们的身份,对于理解关于殖民和全球化对太平洋身份的影响的辩论是很重要的。一些人类学家(如Barber, 1997)认为,第三世界的后殖民主义陷入了试图通过拥抱浪漫化的、“本质主义的”种族身份来恢复地方控制和自豪感的动态中。例如,在斐济,著名的政府人物拒绝以共同名册选举为基础的民主,认为这与斐济以等级制度为基础的文化(与特定土地挂钩的酋长制度)不合适。这是保护斐济对土地和政府控制的努力的一部分,因为许多人担心不受限制的经济竞争会迅速将土著斐济人降至国家和世界秩序的底层(Keesing 1989;劳森1996)。这些想法在2000年斐济的一场政变中得到了明显的体现,这场政变再次呼吁斐济回归主要控制和与土地联系的传统。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Imagining modernity in rural Fiji
Understanding ethnic identity in Fiji and elsewhere in the Pacific requires looking at the ways that individuals draw on ideologies to make sense of the particular circumstances of their lives. While national identity in Fiji is often defined in opposition to the West through reference to a romanticized premodern tradition, individual Fijians are more concerned with defining their identity vis-a-vis other villagers. When people justify their position within the indigenous Fijian community, they question and redefine both tradition and modernity. Modernity is experienced individually as contradictions between competing ideologies and local experience through idiosyncratic life circumstances. "Modern" and "traditional" are not opposites but creatively redefined as having much in common. (Fiji, modernity, postcolonialism, ethnic identity, Pacific) Much literature has examined the ways tradition in the Pacific is invented or imagined to define present identity and achieve contemporary goals (e.g. Keesing 1989; Lawson 1996; Linnekin 1990). This article follows Englund and Leach (2000), Riles (2001), and Robbins (2001) in suggesting that the ways Pacific people imagine modernity is just as crucial as the ways they invent tradition for constructing their sense of self. Modernity, in the form of increased flows of capital, commodities, ideologies, and images, is a state of the world; but, following Ferguson (1999) and Riles (2001), modernity, like the concept of tradition, is also a local construct, imagined in a variety of ways to make sense of particular life circumstances. Ferguson (1999) and Riles (2001) both argue that Third World peoples use constructs of modernity to define identities for themselves within local culture. Ferguson (1999) says that his Zambia informants in the 1980s sounded as if they had read 1950s sociology texts on modernization theory when they stressed the need for strong nuclear families, independent individuals, and the need to work hard and try new things in order to bring about economic development. While social scientists and Third World governments have largely rejected modernization theory, it lives on in the minds of those who grew up under the policies it shaped. Ferguson (1999) suggests that Zambians slip in and out of modernity as a distinctive "style" in order to position themselves in Zambian society; for instance, espousing nuclear families and avoiding the demands of rural relatives. Riles (2001) similarly argues that urban Fijian workers in NGOs define their identity within the Fijian community through an international "aesthetic" of modernity that constructs problems and approaches in terms of international concepts like the need for networks and for "grids" generating goals and plans for action. Both scholars suggest that modernity is constructed in imagination to create local identities (cf. Englund 2002). The life stories of several rural Fijians show that constructs of modernity are just as crucial to imagining identity as constructs of tradition. Examining how people use constructs of modernity to imagine their identities is important for understanding debates about the effects of colonization and globalization on Pacific identities. Some anthropologists (e.g., Barber 1997) argue that Third World postcolonials are trapped in a dynamic of trying to restore local control and pride by embracing romanticized, "essentialist," ethnic identities. In Fiji, for instance, prominent government figures have rejected democracy based on common roll elections as inappropriate to a Fijian culture based on ranked vanua (chieftainships tied to particular pieces of land). This was part of an effort to protect Fijian control of land and government when many feared that unchecked economic competition would quickly relegate indigenous Fijians to the bottom of a national and world order (Keesing 1989; Lawson 1996). These ideas were apparently illustrated by a 2000 coup in Fiji that brought with it renewed calls to return to a Fijian tradition of chiefly control and ties to the land. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信