Sahlins concentrates on the moku of Waialua (one of six territorial sub-divisions that make up the island of O’ahu). Waialua itself is split into six ahupua’a and was chosen for close study by Sahlins as he felt that it served as a microcosm Hawaii as whole – both politically and geographically (extending as it did from forest upland to the seacoast). In chapter one Sahlins claims that the territory and landscape are not just background features in the construction of an ethnographic history but rather that they are ‘structural co-ordinates’. He goes onto establish what he refers to as a ‘the master antithesis’, a classic structuralist binary opposition, between the kai and the uka – the sea and the mountain. Using these as his primary ‘structural co-ordinates’ he says that the categories were ‘ubiquitous in Hawaiian thought and practice’ – informing every aspect of Hawaiian life be it organization of labour, political organisations or ceremonial rituals. Sahlins then places all the aspects of Hawaiian myth and cosmology within this grand dichotomy. Abstract notions are split – associated with the mountains are the principles of humanity, peace and true king of sacred descent and in opposition to this the sea is linked with god, war and immigrant usurpers. The mythical gods, Lono (benevolent god, associated with renewal and defence) and Ku (aggressive god associated with war), are also put in this system with Lono in the mountain section and Ku with the sea.
The issue of the Hawaiian gods, Ku and Lono, is a key demonstration of a dynamic structure. Hawaiian mythology states that the king is a manifestation of the gods but of different ones depending on the context. For example, via Makahiki (rituals) the Lono is annually invited to come to the human world and give it life. When this happens the indigenous king takes on the role of Ku and has to kill Lono. He then assumes the role of Lono (as God of defence) in relation to any potential foreign rivals.
What Sahlins is seeking to demonstrate is that firstly the Hawaiian cosmology can be placed into a structure of opposition (Kai and Uka). The crucial aspect the first section of the ethnography though is that this is not a static classification that is resistant to historical change. He is showing that, like all cultural systems, it is a dynamic, shifting framework that can encompass new factors. There are a number of examples to support this. Firstly, there is the role that the mythical temple of Kapukapuakea plays. This temple sits comfortably within the paradigmatic oppositions, associated as it is with the ‘true kings of sacred descent’ and it stands in opposition to the temples of human sacrifice (such as Luakini) that were associated with the violent, foreign usurper. However, whereas archaeologists found remains of the sacrificial temples there is no material trace of Kapukapuakea. It is precisely for this reason that Sahlins argues that this temple is ‘substantial evidence of an enduring structure’.
The image that the author creates is one of a living structure which is constantly striving to get back to a perfect state in which its components a defined in the relationship and opposition other aspects of the system. The system defines the way in which the Hawaiian people view the world and so when faced with the arrival of Captain Cook they have no other possible way of dealing with him than fitting him within their own system – thus he was the return of Lono who would not leave and therefore has to be killed by Ku to restore harmony.
It is in this same manner, Sahlins argues, that the subsequent dealings with the outside world took place. In a key section (p35) Sahlins argues that the whilst Kamehameha I was still viewed by the people of O’ahu as a foreign Maui usurper for much of the 1790s (before a period of stability and peace effectively Lono-ized him from approx. 1804 onwards (p36)) then the authorities were powerless to halt the advance of the haole. Sahlins continues that this was not due solely to a ‘collective unconscious’ amongst the Hawaiian people but that whilst carrying out poorly rewarded work for the present-day authorities they came into contact with landmarks directly associated with the benevolent indigenous leaders and brought their plight into sharp contrast. This is a clear demonstration of the Oahuan ideological structure informing the actions of the Waialuan people and showing that they at least played a significant role in their own history.
With the country relatively stable under Kamehemeha, emphasis shifted towards intensification, firstly of agriculture - as the islands provided supplies for the American-Chinese fur trade, and then of the Sandalwood trade as Hawaii moved from a logistical role to suppliers of goods. During the time Sahlins refers to as ‘The Sandalwood period (1812-1830) a number of significant changes occurred within Hawaiian society – at greatest speed during the kingship of Liholiho (1819-1824). The centralized kingdom of Kamehemeha I slipped into an oligarchy of prominent ali’i – led by the old kings favoured wife, Ka’ahumanu. The tabu system was overthrown and replaced by the Christianity that was being promoted by the white missionaries. In this new atmosphere of peace, competition between ali’i that may previously have been enacted through military strength now took the form of what Sahlins describes as ‘conspicuous accumulation and consumption’ – that was financed by the sandalwood. . The consequence of this were disastrous for everyone (perhaps with the exception of the white traders) – sandalwood supplies had dwindled by the end of the 1820s, labour was diverted from food production to the collection of sandalwood and as a consequence the population fell by up to 25% in 20 years (p57). The Hawaiian elite was left with huge debts and only one way of meeting them – by further exploiting the population.
For Sahlins the debt that the ali’i accumulates is ‘direct testimony to the contribution of the Hawaiian system in its own demise’ (p58). The rampant and unchecked trade in sandalwood and accrual of ‘Polynesian flash’ is an illustration of how prominent Hawaiians justified the world order within their own system and enthusiastically adopted its practices with highly detrimental effects. The consequences though were, at least in part, of the Hawaiian’s own making. In describing the absorption of world order into the indigenous cosmology Sahlins says it was ‘a magnification of the destructive impetus of capitalism by the creative powers of mana.
Sahlins also highlights what he calls the ‘Structure of Conjuncture’ that comes into being as a direct result of the competition between the ali’i. In this structure Ka’ahumanu and her close followers had positioned themselves in alliance with the Christian missionaries and set themselves up as the propagators of the faith. In opposition to her was Governor Boki, a prominent ali’i, who became allied with the foreign traders. The structure was one where ‘the energies of one set of hostilities added to the interests of the other, to produce a kind of compound schismogenesis’ (p67). While in the short term it is possible to argue that the ali’i benefited from this opposition (Boki had access to the foreign goods that he desired, the Ka’ahumanu ma had a faith with which to legitimise their rule), the long-term view would suggest that they (and the ordinary people of the islands) did not profit from this situation. The traders meanwhile gained easy access to sandalwood and willing recipients of their fashionable goods, whilst the missionaries where able to use the authority of the state machine to spread the Christian faith. The alliance of the Ka’ahumanu ma and the protestant brethren persisted for decades– to the extent that in the nation’s first constitution was mainly the work of Rev. William Richards – by the time of writing (1840) the power within the relationship had swung to the missionaries as, for them, the ali’i had served their purpose.
The ‘structure of conjuncture’ does not in itself seem to be a clear cut example of Sahlins’ theory of assimilation of the world order within the Hawaiian framework, as on the surface it seems to be constructed on a foundation of competition and envy of power on the Hawaiian side and a simple case of conflict of interests on the haole side. However, the structure is vital as the tool that enabled the twin-headed monster of Christianity and capitalism to exploit, ravage and irreversibly alter the indigenous Hawaiian way of life. Also, in Boki we see a party who, while keen on the material aspects of the western system, is opposed to the abolition of the tabu system and the installation of Christianity (an issue later complicated by his alliance with the French Catholic missionaries). Although this may be a strictly political move on his part, it nevertheless represents a resistance towards the march of evolution (of the Hawaiian cosmology) that is not regularly seen throughout the work. An interesting consequence of the structure of conjuncture is also that it also highlights the supposed opposition of the secular and the religious in the western capitalist system, although as Sahlins notes ‘Protestant virtues facilitated the reign of capitalism in the long run’ (p117).
No clearer case of ‘hawaiianization’ of western practices can be seen then in the rise of christianity on the islands. What Sahlins demonstrates was that Christianity, whilst being successfully spread around the islands, was not adopted in the pure manner that the missionaries intended it to be but rather it was viewed in much the same way as the tabu system was. For the Ka’ahumanu group it was as much of a political tool as an issue of faith. Even the issue faith was a decidedly shaky one amongst the ali’I – a case point being that of Cox, the ali’i of Wailaui whose beliefs fluctuated between Christianity (when he was saved at sea) and the old religion (after the death of his wife. The nature of Hawaiian society meant that it was accepted by the masses because it was the will of the ali’i not because of its supposed theological superiority to the old religion. As with every other aspect of hoale culture the Hawaiians simply accommodated it within their own way of thinking.
In 1833 the Kauikeouli rebelled, trying to reclaim the authority of the king after the death of Ka’ahumanu. The king however, was not Ku the aggressive god of war but Lono. What he had in popular support he lacked in stomach (P124) He achieved some success (‘the dismantling of the Christian apparatus of schools and churches’ p123) but it soon dissipated and becomes purely symbolic, the power in the actions lost because of the contradictions and subversions in the positions within the system.
Sahilins argues that the Hawaiian people played the role of both author and victim of their own history – saying that they ‘synthesized the experience in their own cultural terms’. He spends time piecing together the Hawaiian cultural order and then carefully shows how it modified itself in order to deal with the ‘cultural trauma’ that the invasion of the white man brought. Time and time again the ethnography provides examples of the ruling Hawaiian powers magnifying and intensifying the effects of the introduction of western civilisation into Hawaii, whether beneficial or, as in the most case, detrimental. However, Sahlins does not present them as the conscious authors of the own history . The people of Hawaii had a certain view and concept of the world and how it functioned and when confronted with the foreign practices they did the only thing they could do – which was to accommodate those practices within their own cultural framework. Consequently Christianity, when adapted was not a radical new theological outlook but simply a new form of the old tabu system, rivalry amongst the ali’i that previously may have taken the form of military conflict was now acted out in parades of western finery. In describing the ‘structure of conjuncture’ Sahlins states that it functioned on an ‘intercultural working misunderstanding’ (P67). However, in his presentation the impression is created that this misunderstanding was entered into with only the western parties having full concepts of what their long-term goals were. The aim of the missionaries was to propagate Christianity – an aim that was achieved through the use of the ruling Hawaiian political powers and once successful the importance of this alliance shrank. The traders main aim was to sell their goods and exploit the labour and resources of the islands – an aim that they achieved with the help of Boki and the other ali’i.
What though were the motives of the ali’I? For Boki it was kudos through accumulation of wealth and for Ka’ahumanu although she saw short-term reward in the justification of her power, she surely did not comprehend the missionaries’ full motives – a national religion independent of state rule - and their fickle unity. Along with this we see Liholiho seeking legitimacy in England but only finding death. This comes together to draw a picture of an exploited naïve indigenous power.
So while Sahlins argues convincingly that the Hawaiians played a significant role in their own demise it must be noted that they were blind authors, who had saw no choice but to react to the changes enforced on them in the way they did.
