10. Rotumans in Fiji: The Genesis of an Ethnic Group
Alan Howard
Irwin Howard
[Published in Exiles and Migrants in Oceania, M. Lieber,
editor. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1977]
INTRODUCTION
In his introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Fredrik
Barth points out that even a drastic reduction of cultural difference
between ethnic groups in culture contact situations does not correlate
in any simple way with reduced relevance of ethnic identities (Barth
1969:32-33). The point is well taken, and there is considerable evidence
to support his contention. One can go farther and assert that without
regular and persistent contact ethnicity is socially irrelevant,
for, as Barth cogently argues, the existence of ethnic groups depends
less on the sharing of a common culture than on the maintenance of
social boundaries. For social boundaries to be actively maintained,
they need to be continually validated, and this requires regular
interaction with members of outgroups.
Given these premises, the effects of European colonization on ethnicity
in the insular Pacific are of particular interest. Prior to European
contact, many Pacific islands experienced very little interaction
with peoples of a substantially different cultural background. An
occasional canoeload of other islanders might make a landfall from
time to time, but as a rule they were either driven off, killed,
or absorbed into the local population through interbreeding (see
chapter 2). Particularly within the large culture areas of Polynesia
and Micronesia, such immigrants were likely to exhibit only slight
differences in language and customs from the host population.
The arrival of Europeans in the area, and the subsequent establishment
of colonial regimes, radically altered this situation. Not only did
the Europeans inaugurate regular firsthand contact, but they also
initiated and institutionalized boundary-maintaining mechanisms designed
to distinguish ethnic groups. Furthermore, social privilege in many
instances was allocated on the basis of ethnicity. In the early contact
period this resulted in what was primarily a European-native dichotomy,
but as time passed different indigenous groups were brought into
regular contact with one another and immigrant laborers were brought
from outside the region (from India, China, and elsewhere) into the
crucible of plantation, mining, and urban communities. Additionally,
interbreeding between Europeans and indigenous populations gave rise
to a half-caste or part-European group. The result has been the development
of polyethnic societies and an opportunity for social scientists
to study ethnic groups in the making.
One such group is the Rotumans, who currently form an ethnic enclave
within Fiji (see map 8). The processes by which Rotuma developed
into a hinterland community to Fiji's urban centers have been documented
elsewhere (Howard 1961). Our focus in this chapter is on the adaptation
of Rotumans to the social milieus of four such urban areas. Here
we are concerned with the degree to which they have formed viable
ethnic communities, the organizational forms that have developed,
and the extent to which ethnic consciousness has been created under
varying conditions. Special emphasis is given to an analysis of the
Rotuman community in Vatukoula, since it is there that the processes
germane to our thesis have been most intense.
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Although a substantial literature has developed over the years dealing
with such topics as race relations, minority group studies, and ethnic
studies, most research and theory have focused on relations between
groups whose boundaries were clearly defined or treated as unproblematic.
Few studies have centered on the processes by which a people who
share a common history are transformed into an ethnic group within
a larger social system. Acculturation studies in anthropology, while
dealing with processes of change, have generally dealt with alterations
in culture content, social transformations within a group, or the
significance of change for acculturating individuals. Barth's recent
effort provides some promising leads, but it falls short of projecting
a theory of ethnic group development. In this section we attempt
to build on Barth's formulation; specifically, we postulate a set
of processes that lead to the development and crystallization of
ethnic boundaries and, by implication, to the formation of ethnic
groups. After presenting data from the Rotuman case, we conclude
the chapter with a consideration of specific variables that hasten
or retard the relevant processes.
The theoretical paradigm we are advocating begins with two distinct
populations who are unaware of each other's existence. Initial awareness
may occur either through direct contact or indirectly through intermediaries,
but in either case the first bits of information provide the basis
for the development of ethnic categories. If information flow is
slow and irregular, these categories may remain vague for a time,
but with regular contact information input is accelerated, generating
preliminary stereotypes. Barth points out that the features taken
into account in generating ethnic stereotypes are not necessarily
based on "objective" difference, but that "some cultural features
are used by the actors as signals and emblems of differences, others
are ignored, and in some relationships radical differences are played
down and denied" (1969:14). He suggests two types of information
of relevance to the establishment of ethnic dichotomies: one consists
of the diacritical features that people look for and exhibit to show
identity, such as dress, language, house form, and general lifestyle;
the other involves evaluative criteria for judging behavior and the
products of behavior. Barth's basic message, however, is that "ethnic
categories provide an organizational vessel that may be given varying
amounts and forms of content in different sociocultural systems" (1969:14).
As such, their social existence is independent of culture content
but depends instead on the maintenance of social boundaries.
Ethnic boundaries may not emerge with clarity as soon as categories
develop, however. In the early stages of contact such boundaries
may include extensive "shadow areas" in the form of ambiguous situations,
role discrepancies, and obtuse or overlapping diacritical features.
During these stages social relations may involve the two populations
more as ethnic aggregates than as ethnic groups. Such is particularly
likely to be the case when there are no clearly demarcated geographical
boundaries between the populations. The distinction between an ethnic
aggregate and an ethnic group is that with the former, ethnic designation
is subordinate to other identity principles in the organization of
a population's social life while with the latter it is superordinate.
Barth's comments concerning polyethnic social systems (1969:17) are
what we have in mind in considering ethnicity as superordinate:
Common to all these systems is the principle that ethnic
identity implies a series of constraints on the kinds of roles an
individual is allowed to play, and the partners he may choose for
different kinds of transactions. In other words, regarded as a status,
ethnic identity is superordinate to most other statuses, and defines
the permissible constellations of statuses, or social personalities,
which an individual with that identity may assume.
The crucial question from the standpoint of the development of ethnic
groups can thus be phrased: Under what conditions does ethnicity
become the superordinate symbol of identification within a social
system? Our position is that the fundamental conditions underlying
the transformation of an ethnic aggregate into an ethnic group are
(1) the development of an ethnic community, that is, a localized
interactive network consisting of individuals of the same ethnic
designation who are emotionally committed to the symbols of their
common heritage and formally organized for the purpose of pursuing
common goals; and (2) the formation of ethnic consciousness. Ethnic
consciousness may be defined as a special case of ethnic awareness,
that is, a recognition by an individual that his ethnicity is a significant
factor in ordering his social relations. When ethnicity assumes a
position of primacy for the individual in structuring his interactions,
whether with others of his own ethnic category or outside it, his
awareness may be said for our purposes to have become consciousness.
Ethnic consciousness may develop on an individual level in response
to a number of circumstances: these include overt discrimination
by others, a sense of superiority or inferiority, or status ambiguities
that can be resolved by giving primacy to ethnicity. Collectively,
ethnic consciousness emerges as a result of repeated messages circulated
throughout networks of kinsmen, friends, and neighbors to the effect
that other identity criteria are less significant for structuring
interpersonal relations than ethnic differences. The redundancy of
these messages serves to structure both social interaction among
ethnic cohorts and an ideology of "we-ness," the sharing of a common
social fate. The structural manifestations of these messages are
the extension of close personal bonds characteristic of kinship and
friendship to all who are members of the same ethnic category and
the restricting of one's personal relationships to people within
that category. That one member of the category is shamed, offended,
or honored implies shame, anger, and honor for all vis-a-vis nonmembers.
To the extent that nonmembers of an ethnic category view members
as interchangeable, the redundancy of the relevance of ethnicity
is likely to be reinforced. For example, when the message that an
individual lost his job or was abused because of his ethnicity circulates
through a network of people of the same category, indignation and
emotional solidarity are more likely to be engendered than if other
identity variables are acknowledged to have played a part. The notion
of sharing a common fate, if accepted by members of an ethnic category,
takes on the character of an ideology by which people interpret their
relationships within and without the network of ethnic cohorts. At
this point, we can say that an ethnic group has emerged. [1]
The content of the unifying ideology may vary from group to group,
but it always involves a common symbol or set of symbols. The key
symbols may be racial features, religious practices, a monarchy,
or common acceptance of some kind of charter myth, for example. Inasmuch
as symbols and ideology are involved, we regard the formation of
ethnic groups as very much a cultural process as well as a structural
one, although we agree with Barth that once a group is formed its
culture content may change drastically without the boundaries of
the group being affected. For Rotumans, the dominant symbol of their
shared ethnicity is the island of Rotuma itself: any person may claim
to be a Rotuman if one or more of his known ancestors was born on
the island and shared in the core social and cultural life that characterizes
the society. [2]
As reported in an earlier article on conservatism among the Rotumans,
the emergence of a consolidating ideology is rooted in the bicultural
experience of nontraditional leaders, that is, individuals whose
prestige accrues from success in Western occupations and professions
(Howard 1963a:73-74). These leaders are people of influence because
they are educated Rotumans among uneducated Rotumans; their success
in the outside world is acknowledged by other Rotumans as significant.
Their influence and high status are located within the Rotuman community
and depend on its existence. Moreover, they are leaders because of
a demonstrated commitment to Rotuma, a commitment that has become
highly conscious as a result of European education and experience
in a Europeanized society. Having learned the mechanics of European
culture, they have also learned to evaluate their own society in
abstract terms as, for example, these terms are used in school to
describe models of law and social organization (such as the government
of Great Britain). Possessing an intellectual idiom for perceiving
a society, educated Rotumans have often been struck by the inconsistencies
between ideology and behavior in Western societies, as compared to
a far greater consistency in Rotuman values and behavior, and between
Western (particularly Christian) ideology and Rotuman behavior. Their
education has therefore tended to foster an idealism about their
own society while their experience has provided means to implement
their ideas in community action.
Before describing the circumstances that have generated a Rotuman
ethnic group in Fiji, we present in the following section some aspects
of social life on Rotuma that are relevant to our basic discussion. [3]
ROTUMA
From Cession in 1881 until Fiji was granted independence, Rotuma
was administered by Great Britain as part of the Colony of Fiji.
The decision leading to this arrangement was based on administrative
convenience rather than on any existing ties between Rotuma and Fiji.
In language, culture, and physical type Rotumans are clearly distinct
from Fijians, resembling more closely than the latter the Polynesians
to the east. Administration of Rotuma (which lies some 300 miles
north of the Fiji group) was in the hands of a district officer who
was responsible to the commissioner and, ultimately, to the governor
of Fiji. In addition to his administrative duties, the district officer
had the power of second class magistrate and presided over the Council
of Rotuma, which was composed of the paramount chiefs of the island's
seven traditional districts, an elected representative from each
district, and the senior medical officer on the island. [4]
The traditional social organization is based on a system of bilateral
kinship. A key concept is kainaga, which
in its broadest sense refers to kinsmen and in a more restricted
sense to the bilateral descendants of an ancestor holding rights
over a particular parcel of land. Kainaga,
in the restricted sense, are the major landholding units. In each
traditional district, a limited number of kainaga hold
the right to a chiefly name, some being eligible for paramount chieftainship
within the district, others not. Districts are divided into ho'aga,
which comprise from three to seventeen households (with an average
of ten). Ho'aga are essentially work
units, whose members have an obligation to assist one another in
times of crisis and on ceremonial occasions. The most basic socioeconomic
unit in Rotuma is the kau noho'ag 'household'
(essentially persons sharing a common hearth and comprising a common
consumption unit, since food is easily the most important consumable
commodity). The model 'household' consists of a nuclear family with
one or more relatives of either spouse (39.3 percent) or a nuclear
family by itself (29.6 percent). Persons who are not members of a
nuclear family (widowed and divorced persons, orphans, offspring
of unwed mothers, unmarried adults) tend to have a high rate of residential
mobility, moving from household to household. Almost every Rotuman
man is an agriculturist, at least while living on Rotuma. Even those
engaged in wage labor maintain gardens to provide their families
with food. A man is judged primarily in his role as provider, and
to be a good provider means to bring home more than enough food for
his family's needs. With the exception of wage earners, this means
being a competent and industrious farmer and harvesting available
copra. The women on Rotuma have as their major tasks the care of
children, keeping the household clean and presentable, and supplementing
the family food supply by fishing on the reef. This sexual division
of labor is not rigid, however, and cooperation between husbands
and wives on domestic tasks is the rule rather than the exception.
The traditional kinship-based socioeconomic organization is crosscut
by geographical divisions. Within Rotuma the sharpest ingroup/outgroup
distinctions are essentially territorial. We found it rather striking
that stereotypes held by persons of each district paralleled those
between ethnic groups elsewhere. These stereotypes typically focus
on alleged behavioral differences; for example, the people of one
district are ridiculed as being like chickens--that is, marrying
with kinsmen who are genealogically closer than deemed appropriate.
For each district (and in some cases for each village) it is possible
to elicit a stereotype that has currency and is essentially shared.
Furthermore, it soon became clear to us that territorial proximity
plays an extraordinary role in structuring social relations on the
island. It is a general rule that people who interact frequently
as neighbors, especially as 'work unit' mates, manifest a strong
solidarity; correspondingly, clashes between neighbors often precipitate
a residential move by one or the other. Even close kinship ties are
rarely strong enough to overcome long-term geographical separation.
Two other organizational principles crosscut those of kinship: one
is religion and the other is the formation of voluntary associations.
Voluntary organizations are formed mainly for the purpose of playing
such European sports as soccer, rugby, and cricket. They are generally
ephemeral organizations, lasting only as long as interest in a particular
sport is salient. As a matter of convenience they tend to be strongly
influenced by territorial patterning. For all practical purposes
the only religious groups represented on the island since Cession
have been Methodists and Catholics. The division between these groups
largely coincides with a pre-European political division and, therefore,
also has a strong territorial patterning. Rivalry between the two
religious groups was intense enough to provoke a war just prior to
Cession, and religion has remained a significant factor in ordering
social relations on the island to the present day. Cross-religious
marriages are frowned upon, and when they do take place one of the
partners usually is required to convert. Even here, the power of
territorially based solidarity is manifest: it is the person who
takes up residence in the spouse's village who changes religion.
Ethnicity is another factor considered by Rotumans in accounting
for behavioral differences on the island. The obvious cases are when
Europeans, Fijians, or Indians are involved. Attitudinally, there
is a hierarchical structure of stereotypes for these three groups.
While Europeans are regarded as superior and are afforded deference
(although they are also seen as an enigma), Rotumans regard Fijians
and Indians as of lesser status than themselves and sometimes treat
them with mild disdain. Because the number of such cultural aliens
on Rotuma has always been very small in the past, Rotumans have not
been under pressure to differentiate themselves as an ethnic group
while confined to the island. Although they developed relatively
clear conceptions of other ethnic categories, their conception of "Rotuman" remained
vague. In large part it remained vague because the great majority
of people on the island rarely if ever interacted with non-Rotumans,
and so the interfaces between ethnic groups remained shadowy. It
was only after people gained a sense of what it is like to be treated
as a Rotuman (rather than as a farmer, a man from the district Oinafa,
a chief) that a sense of ethnicity crystallized. Our argument is
that this did not occur until substantial Rotuman enclaves developed
in Fiji. In recent years, as the circulation of people between Rotuma
and Fiji has increased to the point that most adults on the island
have spent some time in Fiji, awareness of Rotuman ethnicity has
spread throughout the population. Even so, such ethnic identity is
salient only in Fiji as a basis for self-identity and for ordering
social relationships.
ROTUMANS IN FIJI
Rotuman emigration to Fiji in substantial numbers has been relatively
recent. The census of 1921 shows only 123 Rotumans, or 5.5 percent
of the total Rotuman population, residing in Fiji (Fiji Legislative
Council 1922). Fifteen years later the figure had risen only to 273
persons, representing 9.7 percent of all Rotumans. Since 1936, however,
the rise has been rapid-to 569 persons in 1946 (17.2 percent) and
1,429 persons in 1956 (32.3 percent). The biggest Rotuman concentration
in 1956 was in Ba Province, the site of a large gold mining industry.
Most Rotumans living in Ba reside in Vatukoula, where the mine is
located, or in the nearby town of Tavua. In 1956, when the Fiji census
was taken, the Rotuman population of Ba totaled 669. The second largest
concentration was in Suva city, with 372 Rotumans. Third came Lautoka
township with 71 Rotumans, then Levuka township with 56 Rotumans.
These four locations accounted for 81.7 percent of all Rotumans living
in Fiji at the time. Vatukoula not only contained the most Rotumans
in absolute terms during 1956 but also showed the highest ratio of
Rotumans to others (103 per 1,000); next came Levuka (37 per 1,000),
then Lautoka (10 per 1,000), and finally Suva (1 per 1,000) (McArthur
1958).
By 1961, when we conducted our census of Rotumans in Fiji, the overall
number of Rotumans in Fiji had swelled considerably. Increases were
taking place selectively, however, with Suva and Lautoka absorbing
almost all additional migrants and Vatukoula and Levuka remaining
nearly constant. Thus the 1966 Fiji census shows 986 Rotumans in
Suva, an increase over 1956 of 165 percent, and Lautoka shows an
increase to 187 Rotumans for an increase of 163 percent (Zwart 1968).
These were, in effect, open towns from the standpoint of Rotuman
migrants. The Rotuman population of Levuka, on the other hand, decreased
by 14 (-25 percent) and that of Vatukoula decreased by 3 (-0.6 percent).
These were closed communities from a migratory viewpoint. During
the same period the population of Rotuma increased by 7 percent.
We shall refer to Rotumans in each of these urban areas as constituting
an "ethnic enclave"--that is, members of an ethnic category who are
residentially embedded in a sociopolitical unit dominated by others.
Before going on to a comparative analysis of Rotuman communities
in Fiji, it is important for our argument to describe briefly the
social structure of ethnicity in Fiji at the time of our study. One
may gain a good initial picture of ethnic divisions from the dominant
European perspective by referring to the census categories used.
The 1956 census lists seven categories: Chinese and part-Chinese,
European, part-European, Fijian, Indian, Rotuman, and Other Pacific
Islander. Broadly speaking, and again from a European point of view,
these groups may be arranged in three major status categories with
Europeans at the top, part-Europeans intermediate, and native populations
(including Indians as well as Fijians and Rotumans) at the bottom.
The Chinese are generally less visible socially and their rank is
less clearly defined. There are, however, refinements within these
groups, one being that the Polynesian Rotumans are generally regarded
as more advanced than the Melanesian Fijians. [5] The
key population from the standpoint of ethnic mobility within this
system is the part-European group. Because they are racially mixed,
social entry into this group is less rigidly bounded than those based
on "pure" race. Thus an educated Fijian remains just that, unless
he happens to have a European ancestor and shows at least some European
racial features; he can then pass as a part-European and probably
increase his social privilege. It is significant for our purposes
that Rotumans enjoy a distinct advantage over Fijians and Indians
with regard to this mobility channel. As Polynesians, they were favored
as mates and mistresses by European men, so a high proportion of
Rotumans have a European ancestor. But apart from that, their physical
type is closer to that of the stereotypic part-European, making it
easier to gain acceptance without resorting to genealogical credentials.
This circumstance probably has retarded the consolidation of a Rotuman
ethnic identity within Fiji in some respects. It was easy enough,
while numbers were small, for Rotumans to pass for part-European,
particularly since a high proportion of early emigrants were in professional
roles such as teachers, and medical officers. The situation in Levuka
during 1960 was probably indicative of this early phase.
LEVUKA
Levuka, on the island of Ovalau, was the original capital of Fiji
when the colony was formed. After the capital was shifted to Suva,
Levuka remained an administrative center (the location of the eastern
commissioner, who holds jurisdiction over Rotuma), but its importance
slipped as a commercial and trading town. The population of Levuka
in 1956 was 1,535, including 56 persons registered as Rotumans (McArthur
1958).
At the time of our study only six fully Rotuman households existed
in Levuka. Three of these were headed by men of professional status.
A fourth was headed by a physician, Dr. Kautane, who ranks as the
senior assistant medical officer on the island of Ovalau. [6] The
other two Rotuman households were headed by a clerical worker and
a postman. In addition to these, there were two Rotumans (living
with non-Rotuman spouses) and two Rotuman men, each of whom had a
Rotuman mother and a European father. The community was rounded out
by seven student boarders and five Catholic nuns.
A significant feature of the Levuka enclave is that most of the
residents were assigned to their positions; they did not opt to go
there in search of employment or to be with relatives. In fact, most
of the residents are functionally nonkinsmen. This distinguishes
Levuka from the other communities to be discussed, in which kinship
has played an important role in expanding and organizing the enclave.
As a corollary to this, Rotumans in Levuka are geographically scattered
instead of being clustered in a neighborhood.
The Rotuman enclave in Levuka has no formal organization, and no
exclusively Rotuman clubs have been formed. Dr. Kautane is the unquestioned
leader of the enclave, but strictly in an informal fashion. He is
the one to whom people go for advice regarding things Rotuman, and
he serves as a critical link with the home island by transmitting
and receiving information. It is to him that Rotumans outside the
Levuka enclave look when mobilization of resources is required. His
primary credentials are extraordinary prestige within the broader
community and relatively lengthy residence in Levuka as well as compelling
personal characteristics. He is one of three native members of the
Masonic lodge in Fiji and a member of two primarily European clubs;
his closest friends are European and part European. He owns his own
well-furnished and spacious home, which serves as a hostel for Rotuman
schoolchildren studying in Levuka. Dr. Kautane is fluent in English
and Fijian, although Rotuman remains the predominant language within
his household.
Socially, then, the Rotuman enclave in Levuka forms a loosely knit
network with Dr. Kautane as the major node. Interaction is most frequent
among the professional men and their families, although there are
occasions, such as births, when most members of the network are present.
But these occasions are rare, and what is more important, most persons
include in their intimate network several non-Rotumans. Also of relevance
is that Levuka is a small town, and, particularly among the professionals,
people are placed socially more by their positions than their ethnicity.
As a result, the ethnic boundaries circumscribing Rotuman ethnicity
in Levuka are permeable. Whatever centripetal forces are generated
by a common language and sense of kinship are more than balanced
by such centrifugal forces as professional association, interethnic
organization, and neighborhood scatter.
LAUTOKA
Unlike Levuka, Lautoka was a rapidly expanding town during our period
of research. A new wharf had just been completed, and in addition
to being the commercial and administrative center for one side of
Viti Levu, Lautoka was beginning to serve as a major international
seaport as well. Previously, the town centered mainly on the Colonial
Sugar Refinery and had served as a market town for the sugar plantations
which occupy much of the land around it. The 1956 census showed a
population of 7,420 for Lautoka, including 71 Rotumans (McArthur
1958); but by 1960 the population had climbed above 10,000, and the
number of Rotumans had more than doubled. Our questionnaire on residential
mobility revealed that the Rotuman population in Lautoka includes
few short-term visitors, particularly very few of those from Rotuma
who intend to return to their home island. In this respect it contrasts
most with Suva, where a high proportion of households include short-term "guests." As
in Levuka, the Rotumans in Lautoka are residentially scattered, but
the Lautoka community does contain a core network of closely related
families.
Although there are no formal Rotuman organizations in Lautoka, the
level of Rotuman-oriented activity is higher and the formalization
of leadership is somewhat greater than in Levuka. A monthly service
is held in the Rotuman language at the local Methodist church with
the two Rotuman preachers in Lautoka presiding. Unscheduled meetings
of the entire Rotuman community in Lautoka are called every month
or so by Mekatoa, the acknowledged leader of most of the families
in Lautoka. Very little business is discussed at these gatherings
according to Mekatoa, but he believes they are necessary to keep
the Rotuman community together. Because of the larger population,
and owing to the greater degree of kin relatedness than in Levuka,
there are more births, marriages, and funerals to bring people together
and reinforce their sense of Rotuman identity, but these still occur
at irregular intervals and with much less frequency than in Rotuma
proper. In an attempt to perpetuate Rotuman identity among the children
growing up in Lautoka, a night school was organized some years ago
to teach them the essentials of Rotuman custom, but the venture did
not take and dissolved from unknown causes.
Mekatoa has resided in Lautoka since 1939 and is employed as a fitter
for the Public Works Department. He is acknowledged by all but three
families to be the informal leader of the Rotumans in Lautoka. The
three families who do not recognize Mekatoa's leadership broke with
him after an incident involving kinsmen in
Vatukoula and now look to one of their own for leadership. Mekatoa
also serves as coordinator of the Rotumans within the Methodist church.
As a leader, he enjoys neither the legitimacy of Rotuman chieftainship
nor the charisma of Dr. Kautane in Levuka. His main credentials,
in fact, come from his long-term residence in Lautoka and familiarity
with the local scene. Whenever a new Rotuman family comes to Lautoka,
they are expected to inform Mekatoa of their arrival and intentions;
he then keeps them informed about Rotuman affairs.
Discussions with Mekatoa indicated that keeping the Rotuman community
together in Lautoka takes a strong conscious effort on his part;
without it, he says, the community would dissolve and Rotuman custom
would be neglected. The factional dispute mentioned above is only
one indication of the tenuousness of group solidarity. Although the
Rotumans in Lautoka are more organized than those in Levuka, they
do not form a cohesive group. Ethnicity there has not yet clearly
emerged as the primary basis for structuring social relationships,
although it is clearly of significance.
SUVA
Suva is the city of Fiji. It is the center of government,
commerce, and entertainment and by far the most cosmopolitan of Fiji's
urban areas. The population of Suva in 1956 was 37,371, of whom 372
were Rotumans (McArthur 1958). Residentially, Rotumans concentrate
in a few clusters in different parts of the city; generally the clusters
are formed around acknowledged kinship ties. The range of occupations
represented among Rotumans in Suva is greater than in any of the
other communities, and the degree of residential fluidity is greatest
there. Persons coming to Fiji from Rotuma are most likely to spend
their initial time in Suva, either because it is the center for services
they are seeking (medical, governmental, educational) or because
it offers the most by way of urban contrast with Rotuma. The entire
picture, reflecting that of the general urban milieu, is one of considerable
social, economic, and residential fluidity. Suva is the place where
Rotumans come to seek their fortune, so to speak, and for many this
changes on a daily basis.
Whereas the Rotuman enclaves in Levuka and Lautoka could be considered
as singular loosely knit networks, in Suva it would be more accurate
to characterize the social arrangement as consisting of several closely
knit networks within a rather open ended system of relationships.
For one thing, class differences based on Europeanization and educational
and occupational differences are more pronounced in Suva than elsewhere
in Fiji and they are reflected in contrastive lifestyles. There are
also several Rotuman clubs to be found in Suva, some of which are
exclusive to district of origin in Rotuma and help newcomers adjust
to the city, although others are open to all Rotumans and serve as
sports clubs as well as fraternal organizations. Both the Methodist
and the Catholic churches in Suva regularly perform services in the
Rotuman language, and each sponsors Rotuman oriented activities such
as bazaars and bingo.
Leadership within the Suva community is essentially informal, as
in Levuka, but it is multiple. Several Rotuman men with high positions
in the professions or in government reside in Suva, and each is looked
up to by a portion of the enclave. They are asked for advice on issues
pertaining to their competencies, but none is acknowledged by all
to be their spokesman. Several attempts have been made to organize
the entire community, but all have been short-lived. It seems that
internal differences of interest are too great, and the pressures
from outside too little, to sustain solidarity. Nevertheless, it
is far easier for an immigrant to remain wholly within a Rotuman
social world in Suva than it is in either Levuka or Lautoka since
the variety of Rotuman-held jobs encompasses the entire range of
services available without going beyond the boundaries of the ethnic
enclave. This is made possible by the larger size of the Suva enclave
and by residential clustering in parts of the city.
Suva thus seems to provide conditions conducive both to opening
and to closing ethnic boundaries. Among the Europeanized professionals
and white-collar workers, it is often expedient to minimize one's
Rotuman background and pass as a part-European or to leave the whole
question of ethnicity unspoken. Some minimize their affiliation with
other Rotumans, including kinsmen, in order to reduce the drain on
their accumulating resources. For these individuals Rotuman ethnicity
plays a minimal role in structuring their social life. For others,
however, the fact of "Rotumanness" becomes paramount. They are aware
that the vast majority of people in the city are ethnically different
from themselves and speak languages they do not understand. They
confine all significant social relations to the Rotuman enclave and
come to see the contrast between Rotumans and non-Rotumans as the
most significant ones in their social worlds.
VATUKOULA
Vatukoula grew up as a result of a gold mining operation begun in
1935 by three mining companies owned by overseas European interests.
Initially it was assumed that the mining operation would be short-term
and so it was based on open-cut work, but later on the lodes were
found to have depth and underground shafts have sustained a commercially
profitable operation. Two of the companies ceased operations in 1959,
leaving the Emperor Gold Mining Company in complete control. At the
time of our study the EGMC's management formed the effective government
for the entire community in the classic style of colonial enterprise.
The mine management explicitly divides its employees into ethnic
categories as follows: Europeans, part-Europeans (actually limited
to Euronesians, or mixtures between Europeans and Pacific Islanders),
Fijians, Rotumans, and Indians. Each ethnic group has been allocated
living quarters supplied by the management. The quarters allocated
to Rotuman workers are insufficient for their needs, and many are
forced to reside 10 miles away in Tavua until additional housing
is made available by the mine management. Unfurnished houses in Vatukoula
are assigned to individual workers and their families; the worker
is responsible for the upkeep of the house and pays a modest rent.
A worker is not permitted to sublet his house, and when he leaves
the mine's employment he is obliged to vacate. The house is then
reallocated by the mine's management. Thus, although residence itself
is quite stable in Vatukoula, there is an aura of impermanence within
the community.
Although wages are the main basis of support, land for cultivation
is made available by request to the company. Despite the perpetuation
of subsistence activities by almost all the Rotuman households, a
fundamental alteration has occurred in the relationship between people
and capital in this new environment. In Rotuma, a person's descent
group has use rights over his land and can make legitimate claims
on it for copra cutting and residence sites. In Vatukoula, on the
other hand, the sole criterion legitimizing control of capital goods
(house and cultivated land) is merit with the company. A result of
this altered situation is that kinsmen, including parents, may be
considered parasitic in Vatukoula if they stay in a household to
which they do not materially contribute. The critical distinction
is that wages do not involve prior capital, and they can be accumulated.
Traditional rights are therefore not involved in the same way, and
the provision of support is likely to be interpreted by a wage earner
as an act of benevolence rather than one of obligation. Nevertheless,
Vatukoula had the lowest percentage of nuclear households and the
highest percentage of expanded households of any of the Rotuman enclaves
studied. [7] This
follows from the traditional Rotuman rule that those who are well
off ought to nurture those who are not, and since employment in the
mines is tantamount to being well off for Rotumans in Fiji, relatives
are drawn to them. The net result is a high degree of intrahousehold
conflict and strains on relationships that are more severe in Vatukoula
than elsewhere. At the same time, some informants believe that wage
earning tends to reduce disputes between households that
stem from the system of land tenure on Rotuma. They point out that
on Rotuma, when a man needs money he must take coconuts for copra
off family land, thereby creating competition for limited resources,
whereas in Vatukoula, as one man put it, "We earn our money by our
own sweat and it is clean money." When asked what he meant by "clean
money," he explained that it was free of the dirt of land problems
and the potent curses that accompany family disputes.
Within the mining community itself, internal residence change is
most often the result of house promotion. Thus whenever a house becomes
vacant within the Rotuman allocation, workers with less desirable
homes are given an opportunity to occupy it in order of merit with
the company. This generally starts a chain response-a worker vacates
his house in order to occupy another, someone in an inferior structure
moves into his, and so on. Ultimately, this may result in someone
who has been residing outside the company town in Tavua obtaining
a company house. One consequence of this system is that job status
within the company is directly translated into a highly visible form
of social rank. This contrasts with Rotuma, where there is far less
congruence between social status and quality of housing, and herein
lies what may be a fundamental metaphoric distinction between the
two communities. On Rotuma, social status often is symbolized in
acts of social deference; in Vatukoula, it is the kind of house one
resides in that conveys one's social standing. Correspondingly, on
Rotuma social merit is judged largely in terms of the degree to which
a man uses his resources in the service of relationships and for
community benefit; in Vatukoula social merit is very strongly (though
not unequivocally) tied to the position a man holds in the mining
company
These shifts in perspective are part and parcel of an adjustment
to a wage-oriented market economy and away from an economic system
based on subsistence and ceremonial redistribution. Although Rotuma
itself is involved in the money economy of Fiji and the rest of the
modern world, on the island money has been adapted to the traditional
system rather than having transformed it (see Howard 1970). In Vatukoula
Rotuman custom has been adapted to the pressures of a capitalistic
society; this is particularly evident in the way ceremonial events
are handled. The most relevant social aspect of such events on Rotuma,
the ritualized redistribution of food, mats, and other items, is
precisely the feature that came under heaviest attack in Vatukoula.
On several occasions known to us, persons in Vatukoula refused to
participate in ceremonial (redistributive) exchanges at weddings
and other events involving close kinsmen and insisted on giving a
cash gift instead. The motives behind such deviations from custom
seem to be based on a growing economic conservatism oriented toward
maintaining a lifestyle commensurate with one's rank in the company
and a cautious but nevertheless intense desire on the part of some
leaders to raise the Rotumans' standard of living and esteem vis-a-vis
other groups. Characteristically, every leader or would-be leader
has a scheme of some sort for improving the economic well-being of
the Rotuman community. Rather than being aimed at accumulating more
goods, these plans are calculated to save money. This preoccupation
appears to characterize Rotuman attitudes when dealing with collective
assets, not only in Vatukoula but on Rotuma as well. The Rotuma Development
Fund and the Rotuma Cooperative Association, for example, both have
accumulated substantial assets which, despite prodding by the colonial
government, remain unspent. In neither case are the Rotumans willing
to eliminate the copra taxes and high prices on goods, despite the
fact that these are genuine burdens on the population.
One can only speculate about the reasons for this disposition. Perhaps
it has to do with pride. We believe that to Rotumans the accumulation
of money is symbolic of a capacity to master the socioeconomic system
that has been imposed on them. The metaphoric power of the symbol
lies, we suspect, in the measure of independence that is predicated
on having capital reserves.
The concern of Rotumans for retaining independence and control over
their own affairs has been expressed in several ways in Vatukoula,
often to the dismay of the mine management. This feature of Rotuman
coping tactics is evident in the view held by Mr. Carson, a European,
the mine's welfare officer. From our field notes come Carson's observations.
Mr. Carson feels that one of the problems in his relations
with the Rotumans is that they tend to allocate themselves more power
than they actually have. An example of this problem is that the Rotumans
believe they should have the power to allocate housing. The mine
management assigns housing facilities on the basis of seniority of
merits. The Rotuman community has various other criteria of seniority
that the mine management does not recognize, and this is the basis
of the conflict. Mr. Carson states that the heads of the Rotuman
community approached him once and wanted their native minister to
have a house better than he deserved by his other merits. After a
good deal of consideration, Mr. Carson pulled all available strings
and got him the house in question. This was all done with the recognition
by Mr. Carson that the minister was a man of great value to the community
as a whole. He confides that he is still feeling the dissatisfaction
of his superiors from that move. The Rotumans have come to him recently
and not only told him who should go into a given empty Rotuman house,
but have declared that a vacant European house across the field should
be let to a Rotuman family.
This concern for housing, incidentally, suggests that although Rotumans
have accepted the symbolic significance of housing for social status
they are unwilling to yield completely to the mine's unilateral right
to assign that status.
Another illustration of this desire to control their own destiny
is the Rotuman mess hall, which is run exclusively by Rotuman shareholders.
Each worker has a card that is punched every time he has a meal.
At the end of each month, the cards are totaled and a list is sent
to the company. The company then subtracts that amount from the individual's
wages and turns it over to the Rotuman mess; profits are then distributed
to the shareholders. What is significant about this is that the Rotumans
are the only ones in Vatukoula who take care of their own food. The
part-European and European mess are run by contract to a Chinese
caterer; the Fijian mess is taken care of by the company. The advantage
enjoyed by Rotumans in their arrangement lies not only in profits
but also in the capacity to allocate jobs within the mess to Rotumans.
This ability of the Rotumans to organize, and the attitudes underlying
their quest for control, can be better understood in the perspective
of the way leadership has evolved within the community. The first pure 'headman'
(a person with the right to make decisions for a collective) was
Tafaki, who was also the first Rotuman to be employed at the mines
(in 1939). [8] He
had a reputation in 1960 for having been too weak in his dealings
with the mine management. Tafaki's headmanship ended with his discharge
from the company after he left his wife and family and ran off with
another woman.
After a brief interval, Riamkau, an electrician with the company
and a man of strong character, was chosen as 'headman' by the Rotuman
employees. In a short time he had gained a commitment from the company
for better housing, but his aggressive manner also generated some
antagonism within the community. Then Chief Tausia, one of the seven
paramount chiefs from Rotuma, visited Vatukoula in 1950 and appointed
another man, Vai, as 'headman'. Our informants claimed that this
move was unpopular but encountered no overt opposition. Vai remained
'headman' until his death in 1960. He was described as a weak leader,
somewhat like a Rotuman chief whose concern is more with ritual honor
than with the instrumental exigencies of leadership. It seems evident
that despite Vai's formal role as 'headman', Riamkau, who assumed
a chiefly title in the mid-1950s, retained a great deal of influence
in the community and was the dominant political force. Thus when
Vai returned to Rotuma in 1959 to discuss the effects of an ill-fated
land commission, Riamkau took over in his absence and immediately
introduced some dramatic structural changes. He appointed a committee
composed of one man of chiefly descent from each district on Rotuma
and then held a meeting of the entire community and obtained a confirmational
vote. [9] Upon
Vai's return, Riamkau turned the role of leader back to him, but
the committee remained operative.
Interestingly, the resultant structure very nearly duplicated the
social structure on Rotuma. Thus the 'headman' in Vatukoula put in
a very similar position to the district officer on Rotuma, and the
committee corresponded to the Council of Chiefs. Even the monthly
meetings, which rotated among committee members' households, paralleled
the Rotuman custom of rotating host districts. After Vai's death,
a meeting of the entire community was held in the Rotuman hall (built
by the mines for the exclusive use of the Rotuman community) for
the purpose of selecting a new 'headman'. Riamkau was elected. Acting
on a proposal by one of the defeated candidates, the committee then
passed a motion limiting the term of the 'headman' to two years.
The inference was that Vai, who had been in the office for ten years,
would have been replaced under such an arrangement.
The committee arrangement created some problems for the mine management
in their dealings with the Rotuman community. Many of the problems
that arose in relations between Rotumans and the mine management
required, in the latter's opinion, more rapid decision making than
was possible under the new arrangement. Furthermore, whereas Vai
had been employed in Carson's department (a position virtually ensuring
subservience), Riamkau is an electrician and works in a different
part of the mine's operation. As a solution, Carson proposed that
Sosefo Holt, a young, rather Europeanized Rotuman, be appointed clerical
assistant in his office to act as a liaison between himself and Riamkau.
This proposal was rejected by the Rotumans, in large measure, we
were told, because the Rotumans regarded Sosefo as a man who was
strictly out for his own interests and would not adequately represent
the community. It is likely, of course, that the mine management
was well aware of the potential such an arrangement would have had
for diluting Riamkau's leadership and Rotuman solidarity in general.
Riamkau had made it clear in his election platform that he was not
afraid of the management and would try to push for the welfare of
the Rotumans even if his position with the mine would be jeopardized.
As the following passage from our field notes makes clear, he was
tapping a basic Rotuman attitude:
Tomasi says that Vai was fine for dealing within the Rotuman
community itself, but he was too masraga 'shy',
'respectfully deferential to present Rotuman views forcefully to
the European administrators. Riamkau, on the other hand, will go
all the way to the general manager if he sees fit and is not afraid
to deal with the management on even terms. Tomasi expressed in his
conversation that the Europeans are always trying to buy out Rotuman
leaders.
Rotuman suspiciousness of Europeans as being clandestine manipulators
out to get around the Rotuman people seems to be one of the Rotumans'
big leadership problems. The Rotuman leader who is well aware of
European mannerisms and customs, and displays them publicly, is
often suspected of lacking allegiance to the Rotuman community.
Another problem, leading to misunderstandings between Rotuman leaders
and European administrators, is the reluctance Rotumans show in
passing vital information to the Europeans for fear it will be
used to their own detriment.
Despite expressions of overall solidarity, including firm dealings
with the management and the refusal of Rotumans to work on a day
following the death of one of their number, lines of cleavage do
exist within the Rotuman community. These are generally kept out
of the management's view. In addition to district of origin on Rotuma,
recognition of which has been made explicit in the formation of the
committee, kinship and religion remain powerful organizational principles
among Rotumans in Vatukoula. Kinship figures prominently in recruiting
for jobs and in structuring informal relations, but it can also be
divisive in that leaders are under pressure to favor their kin in
decisions requiring impartiality. Also, as previously reported, the
expectations of visiting relatives concerning extended, dependent
visits is frequently a cause of intrafamilial conflict. The Catholic-Methodist
dichotomy also remains potentially schismatic but thus far has not
resulted in factional conflict. In general, it was our impression
that church-oriented activities are somewhat less central in people's
lives than on Rotuma. For example, the Catholic group had not held
a katoaga 'large-scale feast in honor
of a notable event' for nine years, the last time being upon completion
of a new church. On Rotuma, during our year of fieldwork, two such
feasts were held.
Despite these lines of cleavage, the overwhelming impression we
received in Vatukoula was one of community solidarity and ethnic
pride. In the mines, being a Rotuman seemed to be more important
to people's sense of identity than being from Oinafa, being a Catholic,
being so-and-so's kinsman, or being a winder driver. People spoke
of "Rotumans" in reference-group terms far more often in Vatukoula
than elsewhere, including Rotuma, and were concerned with their reputation
as an ethnic group in more active ways. They had clearly extended
their idea of personal relationships to include any person who could
be identified as Rotuman.
The development of firm ethnic boundaries that has taken place in
Vatukoula has resulted in sharpened ethnic stereotyping and a crystallization
of intergroup attitudes. Let us now consider Rotuman-other relations
in this context.
If there is any dominant quality governing attitudes of others toward
Rotumans and vice versa, it could be characterized as ambivalence.
On the whole, the Europeans at the mine and elsewhere in Fiji have
high regard for Rotumans in comparison with other native peoples.
This is reflected both in the high proportion of Rotumans employed
in the mines and in their overrepresentation in positions of responsibility.
European managers of various mine departments were nearly universal
in their praise of Rotuman employees. Despite such praise, it was
our feeling that the general attitude of Europeans was somewhat condescending,
that the praise had an implicit (if not explicit) condition-in comparison
with other native peoples. It was as if their assumption is that
native peoples are generally rather hopeless and that Rotumans sometimes
surprise them.
Rotuman pride is something of an anathema to many Europeans precisely
because Rotumans refuse to conform to the docile childlike native
of the European stereotype. Thus Mr. Dawson, the stock manager for
the mines, openly dislikes the Rotumans. "They haven't an ounce of
brains, and besides, they hate Europeans," he commented. When asked
how they show their hostility, he could not pinpoint any specific
actions, but his analysis made it clear that he equates hostility
with refusing to accept European dominance unconditionally. The reasons
he gives for the failure of Fijians to perform better at the mines
is instructive. He attributes their lack of success to the refusal
of most Europeans to join them in their work. Too often, he claims,
Europeans tell the Fijians what to do and then go away, as if to
show that they would never do that kind of work themselves. In his
own dealings with Fijians, Dawson says that he gets right in there
with them, "even if it means getting mud on my boots and getting
my hands dirty"; as long as he is with them, "I'd match my Fijians
against any group in Vatukoula" (our emphasis). He adds that he would
rather have a not-so-smart fellow who is willing to learn as best
he can than a smart one, because the smart ones are those who will
fight for themselves and are not "behind you." Mr. Carson's complaints
about Rotumans allocating too much authority to themselves, reported
above, also illustrate the irritation caused to Europeans by Rotuman
pride and self-respect.
The Rotumans, for their part, acknowledge the social superiority
of Europeans only inasmuch as it is associated with standard of living,
education, and occupation. They do not acknowledge racial superiority,
nor do they accept everything culturally European as superior to
those practices that are culturally Rotuman. In short, they perceive
no insurmountable barriers in their Rotuman ethnicity to achieving
an acceptable position in the modern world.
One manifestation of the fluidity with which Rotumans perceive racial
boundaries is the ease with which they slip into the part-European
category after gaining an education and when it suits their purpose.
The advantage of passing for part European rather than Rotuman stems
from European rather than Rotuman ethnic conceptions. In general,
the Rotuman stereotype of part-Europeans is unfavorable; they are
seen as pretentious, particularly since the behavior of several of
the more familiar models is less than exemplary. But being a part-European
provides the possibility for entrance into the European social world
in a way that being a Rotuman does not. There are six such people
in Vatukoula, and their attempt to pass as part European signals
not only an aspiration to move up the ethnic hierarchy but also an
alienation from the Rotuman community.
Relations between Rotumans and Fijians are likewise marked by strong
ambivalences. In general, Rotuman attitudes toward Fijians parallel
the attitudes of Europeans--a mixture of mild disdain with patronizing
condescension. They see Fijians fairly much in the mold of indigenes
quite a bit more primitive than themselves. Yet Rotumans hold Fijian
chiefs in high regard and show them the ritual courtesies they would
show their own chiefs; in this sense they see themselves more as
part of an indigenous world in which mana and
other aspects of Malayo-Polynesian supernaturalism are significant
considerations. Since Rotumans do not practice sorcery whereas Fijians
do, the latter are a source of awe if not fear. In general, though,
Rotumans in Vatukoula have come to see themselves as competitive
with Fijians. In charitable ventures in Vatukoula, for example, Rotumans
attempt to outdo Fijians (and other groups) in a massive, public
presentation of their contribution. [10]
The prevailing attitude of Fijians toward Rotumans appears to be
one of resentment. Thus it was reported to us by several sources
that incidents of hostility between Rotumans and Fijians were not
unusual and were caused in large measure by Fijian resentment of
privileges enjoyed by Rotumans in the mines. During the previous
year, following a massive layoff of personnel, Fijian antipathy to
Rotumans reached a boiling point. The general consensus was that
this occurred because only one Rotuman was among those dismissed.
Apparently the matter cooled after a ceremonial presentation of kava
by the 'headman' of the Rotuman community to the head of the Fijian
community. The headmaster of the local school also stressed Fijian
resentment of Rotuman achievement. He stated that Rotuman children
appear to be much brighter on the average than Fijian children and
this results in jealousy. Fijian teachers are unnecessarily harsh
with their Rotuman students, he maintains, and will assign them all
the unpleasant jobs, such as cleaning lavatories, while assigning
the pleasurable ones to the Fijians. They never put a Rotuman child
in charge of Fijians, but always do the opposite. Rotuman teachers
are discriminatory in a reverse fashion, he says, but with somewhat
less vigor.
Before concluding this section on ethnic relations it may be appropriate
to comment on language use. In general, most Rotuman men learn to
get on well in both English and Fijian. English is necessary to comprehend
information passed down from managers and is clearly the status language
in the overall community. Fijian, on the other hand, is frequently
necessary to communicate with Fijian workers whose command of English
is poor and who cannot be expected to learn Rotuman. Most Rotuman
women learn Fijian, but they are less likely than the men to be accomplished
in English. This is because they are able to deal with shopkeepers,
service suppliers, and in some instances servants in Fijian even
if exchanges are with Indians, but they have less interaction than
men with Europeans or other exclusive English speakers. [11]
RESETTLEMENT AND ETHNIC CONSCIOUSNESS
We believe the evidence we have presented demonstrates that the
development of ethnic communities and ethnic consciousness varies
markedly within the different social milieus in which migrants live.
In this concluding section we discuss some of the variables that
appear to have had significant effects on these processes for Rotumans
in urban Fiji. What we would like to account for by reference to
these variables are (1) the degree to which individuals from a given
ethnic category (in this case Rotuman) confine their meaningful social
relations to persons of a like background, (2) the degree to which
ethnicity provides a basis for formal organization, and (3) the degree
to which ethnic identity becomes salient in ordering social relations
with persons who do not share the same background. Loosely speaking,
we believe our study suggests a rank ordering of the four communities
with regard to the importance of Rotuman ethnicity. In Levuka it
has the least effect, in Lautoka and Suva it is intermediate, and
in Vatukoula it is a dominant principle. [12]
The variables affecting ethnicity can be classified into three types,
demographic, social structural, and cultural. We have already mentioned
the prime demographic variable required for the formation of an ethnic
group in the sense we are using the phrase -the existence of an outgroup,
a people sufficiently contrastive in diacritical features to create
a sense of ingroup identity. For ethnic boundaries to be formed and
actively maintained requires, as we pointed out in the introduction,
regular contact with at least one other group. When Rotumans were
confined largely to their home island, opportunities for interacting
with non-Rotumans were highly restricted, thereby limiting the kinds
of experience upon which a solid sense of ethnic identity could be
based. In Fiji, however, Rotumans are in regular interaction with
several distinctive outgroups.
The absolute and relative size of an ethnic enclave appears to have
a significant effect. If the number of individuals in a group is
small, the possibilities for organizing along ethnic grounds may
be too restrictive, given a minimal number of roles that must be
played in a viable organization. If all are kinsmen, of course, they
may in fact form a tightly organized group, but chances are that
ethnicity will play a salient role, especially if non-kin are required
to fill crucial organizational positions. From the standpoint of
other persons in the town, ethnic stereotyping becomes a convenient
means of ordering social relations only when a sufficient number
of persons become socially visible to provide a consistent set of
expectations. If this is correct, there is probably a "critical mass" or
threshold required for ethnicity to become salient. Thus we believe
it is no accident that the boundaries around Rotuman ethnicity roughly
follow size of Rotuman population in the four towns, being least
distinct in Levuka and most pronounced in Vatukoula.
Relative size of population also may exert an influence, inasmuch
as it affects overall visibility. Even though several hundred members
of an ethnic group may dwell in a city, if they are scattered and
form an insignificant portion of the population they may be absorbed
without their ethnicity becoming salient. One way in which this sometimes
happens is for such people to be incorporated into a more inclusive
stereotype-as Scandinavians rather than Swedes or Norwegians, as
Orientals rather than Japanese or Chinese, as Polynesians rather
than Rotumans or Samoans. Scattered residence patterns may not only
diminish ethnic saliency by making a group less visible socially;
it also reduces interaction among members of the group and makes
organization more difficult. It likewise increases interaction with
members of outgroups who are neighbors or who perform localized services,
generating friendships and cooperative relationships across ethnic
lines. Contrariwise, condensed residential patterns are likely to
facilitate organizational potential and diminish meaningful external
contacts. Stability of residence is likely to be another factor,
since the crystallization of ethnic identity is probably facilitated
by feedback within fixed communication networks. Also, if personnel
are continually changing, organizational potential may be hampered
and leadership rendered more problematic. It seems clear that both
the nucleated residence pattern and the relative stability of residence
in Vatukoula have greatly increased the capacity for organization
of Rotumans there in comparison with those in Suva.
One further demographic variable seems worthy of mention although
its effects are far from obvious-the degree to which a community
is growing or declining in size. Our hypothesis is that growth through
immigration tends to increase ethnic consciousness because of the
continual need to socialize newcomers, a process frequently requiring
the explication of boundary mechanisms.
With regard to social structural variables, one must distinguish
between those that are imposed by sources outside the ethnic community,
particularly those prevailing in dominant sociopolitical groups,
and those endemic to the ethnic enclave. To the extent that the dominant
society makes ethnicity a major criterion for defining social roles
and social privilege, one would expect ethnic consciousness to be
fostered. As we have already pointed out, in Fiji ethnicity has been
the major criterion for allocating privilege, with the gold mining
community in Vatukoula epitomizing the situation. Thus the Rotumans
coming to Fiji stepped into a social structure that sought to classify
them by race from the very beginning. The process was fostered by
their distinctiveness from Fijians in racial type (closer to Polynesian)
and language; it was probably furthered by European favoritism for
Polynesians (with whom Rotumans are generally classified by Europeans)
over the darker Melanesians (including Fijians). It was to the Rotumans'
advantage to accept if not nurture the distinction. However, the
presence of the part-European, or Euronesian, group probably has
had a reverse effect. What is significant about this ethnic category,
in addition to the fact that it is second in ethnic rank to European,
is that its boundaries are fuzzy; it is therefore easily permeated
by those who look like they might have some European blood, speak
English reasonably well, and display appropriate decorum. On looks
alone, it is easier for Rotumans to pass into this category than
any other ethnic group in Fiji. Rotumans who have acquired an education,
and particularly those who are in professional or quasi-professional
roles, have often elected to pass as part-European.
Social structural variables internal to an ethnic enclave may be
equally important for the crystallization of ethnic identity. We
might begin by considering a major point of articulation between
the ethnic community and the larger structure-the allocation of jobs.
It seems clear that in wage-earning, market-oriented societies, one
of the primary bases of shared interest is comparability of position
in the occupational structure. Men who work together in parallel
roles tend to identify with one another and share common concerns.
This was particularly evident in the gold mines, where the work is
frequently dangerous and where safety and well-being are directly
in the hands of one's work mates. In Lautoka, Suva, and Levuka, by
contrast, Rotumans are unlikely to be working together in such team-like
efforts. Our hypothesis is that the sharing of work roles greatly
increases male solidarity and in turn fosters the development of
ethnic solidarity.
Another variable favoring the development of viable ethnic communities
is effective, legitimized leadership. Migration may create some difficulties
on this score. Thus, on Rotuma, chieftainship is essentially localized
and related to the land; Rotumans in Fiji are deprived of these criteria.
If a man assumes a Rotuman title while in Fiji, which is possible,
it will be a title from Oinafa or Pepjei or some other Rotuman district.
Other members of the enclave are from other districts, and although
they may pay appropriate ritual deference, they are unlikely to accept
his secular leadership as legitimated by the title. Legitimation
of leadership in Fiji has therefore become associated with elections,
and competency with political effectiveness in the larger community.
Whereas effective leadership appears to have a strong centripetal
effect on ethnic solidarity, ineffective leadership tends to produce
factional disputes along lines of existing cleavages. These may be
along kin lines, as in Lautoka, prior locality in the homeland, or
religion and occupation. We would therefore advance the proposition
that the creation of ethnic solidarity is inversely related to the
number of salient divisive criteria within the community as well
as the effectiveness and legitimacy of leadership.
There are undoubtedly many features of culture that bear on degree
of solidarity among ethnic enclaves, and to complicate matters they
may operate at different levels in communication systems. For example,
the degree to which a people perceive their customs to be compatible
with those of other cultural groups is obviously relevant: if the
enclave regards outsiders' customs as repugnant, or vice versa, this
is likely to inhibit assimilation and lead to rigid ethnic boundaries.
But at a broader conceptual level, the very way in which cultural
formulations about differences in custom are arrived at may be significant.
In short, variations in epistemology of cultural difference may be
of greater importance than the differences themselves. Whereas one
group may postulate crucial differences to be racial (this seems
to have been characteristic of colonizing Europeans), another may
hold supernatural belief systems, language, or custom to be crucial.
Clearly, these different views have different implications for the
formation of ethnic boundaries. A people may be able to change their
language but they cannot readily change their physical characteristics.
Another significant variable has to do with the importance of being
a member of a culturally cohesive community. Some cultural systems
produce individuals who feel personally immobilized unless they are
part of an integral community, or at least they derive great pleasure
from being part of one. Those reared in such a tradition tend to
form compact ethnic communities even when they are few in number.
Other cultural systems place a premium on independence and the maintenance
of social distance from others; individuals from a background of
this type may self-consciously avoid forming close ties with other
members of their ethnic category. The Rotumans are intermediate between
these extremes. They seek neither to converge with nor to avoid other
Rotumans with any pronounced motivation.
At an even broader level, cultures may vary in the degree to which
they emphasize abstract formulations of cultural differences. We
have already proposed that Western-educated Rotuman leaders are likely
to be more conservative than chiefs without Western education precisely
because they have learned to make abstract contrastive judgments
about social systems and cultural styles (Howard
1963b). The point
is that the very concept of integrity of a cultural system may be
of major significance. For the Rotumans, then, Western education
has provided the cultural equivalent of a concept of tribal integrity
in strongly unilinear societies. It has helped to provide clear criteria
for inclusion in a social unit of a higher order despite the fact
that the traditional system was characterized by groupings with highly
permeable social boundaries.
It would seem, then, that in addition to the demographic and social
structural variables that foster the development of ethnic communities,
the emergence of an ethnic group is facilitated by the presence of
individuals for whom ethnic identity not only becomes problematic
but is of ideological import. Although such individuals may develop
within an ethnic community, we believe it is more often the case
that they are the products of isolation from their native cultural
systems, with the very isolation heightening their ethnic awareness.
Western schools are breeding grounds of such individuals by virtue
of the degree to which they render one's identity problematic (particularly
for non Occidentals) and the degree to which ideological solutions
to identity problems are encouraged. But ideological solutions are
apt to remain idiosyncratic unless they feed back into communication
networks like those provided by ethnic communities. The Vatukoula
community and its leadership exemplify this process. When this occurs,
and an ideology gains acceptance, conditions are optimal for transforming
an ethnic aggregate into an ethnic group.
CONCLUSION
We have argued in this chapter that the development of an ethnic
group from an aggregate of individuals who are members of the same
ethnic category is primarily dependent upon the development of an
ethnic community and ethnic consciousness. Ethnic communities are
defined as localized interactive networks consisting of individuals
of the same ethnic designation who are emotionally committed to the
symbols of their common heritage and formally organized for the purpose
of pursuing common goals. Ethnic consciousness is defined as a condition
in which ethnic awareness assumes a position of primacy in structuring
social relations. For a collectivity, ethnic consciousness is assumed
to emerge as a result of repeated messages circulated throughout
the network of an ethnic community to the effect that other social
differences are less significant for structuring interpersonal relations
than ethnic differences. The combination of these conditions generates
a critical mass, or threshold effect, leading to the extension of
individuals' integrity circles to include all members who identify
themselves in terms of the relevant ethnic category (Howard
and Howard 1964). This process results in the development of a secondary community
in which the "we-feeling" characteristic of primary face-to-face
groups is extended to other members of the ethnic category on the
basis of an ideology.
We hypothesize that the major variables responsible for the transformation
of an ethnic aggregate into an ethnic group are demographic, social
structural, and cultural. For Rotumans in Fiji the major demographic
variables favoring the development of ethnic communities have been
numbers of individuals and residential contiguity. Only in Vatukoula
have these variables produced a cohesive community. Social structural
variables also have favored Vatukoula as a location for the genesis
of Rotuman ethnicity, in large part because the management of the
gold mines has used racial criteria as the primary basis for organizing
labor. Demographic and social structural variables have therefore
combined in Vatukoula to make it the primary place in Fiji for a
critical mass to be reached, allowing for the crystallization of
Rotuman ethnic identity. The cultural variable of prime significance
has been the development of an ideology of cultural contrast, introduced
by a Western-educated elite. Although the birth of the Rotumans as
an ethnic group has taken place in Fiji, we expect that the ideology
which gives it substance will eventually be accepted by all Rotumans
and that a general consolidation will be the result.
The Rotuman case may contain some unique features, but we believe
that the processes analyzed here may provide the basis for a universal
theory of ethnic group development.
NOTES
Support for the original research was provided by the National Institute
of Mental Health. The National Science Foundation and East-West Population
Institute provided additional support for the analysis of data and
writing up of the material. We are grateful to all three agencies.
We also wish to acknowledge the excellent editorial suggestions of
Michael Lieber and the secretarial assistance of Helen Takeuchi.
1. Like E. K. Francis, we conceive of an ethnic
group as a kind of "secondary community" in which the we-feeling
characteristic of a primary face-to-face group is extended to others
on the basis of an ideology. An ethnic group is, in Francis's conceptualization
(1947:399), "the most inclusive, cumulative, and realistic type of secondary community." [back
to text]
2. It is of some interest that several Rotuman
clubs in Fiji are named for prominent geographical features of the
home island. [back to text]
3. For more extensive treatments of Rotuman society,
see Howard (1963b, 1964, 1970). [back to text]
4. This and what follows reflects the situation
during the period of fieldwork in 1960-1961. [back
to text]
5. The category "Other Pacific Islander," is further
differentiated for census purposes into Polynesian, Melanesian, and
Micronesian, suggesting that these distinctions have a social significance
for Europeans in a formal as well as informal sense. [back
to text]
6. Pseudonyms are used throughout this chapter. [back
to text]
7. In Vatukoula 21.7 percent of the Rotuman households
are nuclear, with 65.2 percent lineally or laterally expanded; comparable
figures for Suva are 23.3 percent and 63.3 percent. for Levuka 25.0
percent and 33.3 percent, for Lautoka 33.3 percent and 40 percent,
for Tavua 45.0 percent and 45.0 percent. [back
to text]
8. The term used on Rotuma for Chiefs' or 'subchiefs',
who would ordinarily hold ritually assumed titles, is gagaja.
The term pure on Rotuma, in addition
to being used to designate the informal leader of a work group, is
used to designate the steward of a landholding kainaga. [back
to text]
9. Tafaki, who had subsequently been rehired by
the mines, was one of those appointed. [back
to text]
10. This sort of competition is also practiced
among church parishes and among districts on Rotuma. In Vatukoula
it is other ethnic groups that are the outgroups, but they are structurally
isomorphic with the church parishes and districts in the competitive
context. [back to text]
11. This, incidentally, is another manifestation
of relatively high Rotuman social status; quite a few Rotuman women
have Fijian servants, but we know of no instances of the reverse
occurring. [back to text]
12. Our concern here, it should be made clear,
is only with the development of ethnic organization and
consciousness. The variables that maintain ethnic boundaries in established
social systems over the long run may be of quite a different nature. [back
to text]
REFERENCES
- Barth , Fredrik
- 1969 "Introduction." In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries:
The Organization of Cultural Difference, edited by Fredrik
Barth. Boston: Little, Brown.
- Fiji Legislative Council
- 1922 Fiji Census, 1921. Legislative Council
Paper no. 2. Suva: S. Bach, Government Printer.
- Francis, E.K.
- 1947 "The nature of the ethnic group." American
Journal of Sociology 52:393-400/
- Howard, Alan
- 1961 "Rotuma as a hinterland
community." Journal of the Polynesian Society 70:272-299.
- 1963a "Conservatism and
non-traditional leadership in Rotuma." Journal of the
Polynesian Society 72:65-77.
- 1963b "Land, activity
systems and decision-making models in Rotuma." Ethnology 2:407-440.
- 1964 "Land tenure and social
change in Rotuma." Journal of the Polynesian Society 73:26-52.
- 1970 Learning to be Rotuman. New York. Teachers
College Press, Columbia University.
- Howard, Alan and Irwin Howard
- 1964 "Pre-marital sex
and social control among the Rotumans." American Anthropologist 66:266-283.
- McArthur, Norma
- 1958 Report on the Census of the Population, 1956. Fijian
Legislative Council Paper no. 9. Suva:Government Press.
|