Locating Wellbeing and Development

The Pacific Way is an ideological construction of the 1970s and 1980s. As an ideology it signified the existence of societal unity within the (South) Pacific premised on the existence of a shared set of cultural values. Even though this ideology may be of limited relevance to wellbeing and development matters within PNG today, it is acknowledged here as being an ideological wave that gave force to the evolution of an alternative, more Melanesian ideology known as the ‘Melanesian Way’. The idea of ‘a Pacific Way’ as a semi-utopian indigenous strategy (Connell, 2007), was introduced by Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara (Fiji’s first Prime Minister) in 1970 in his address to the United Nations General Assembly (Crocombe, 1976). Mara suggested the values of consensus and tolerance informed a Pacific identity (Lawson, 2013), which could be associated with the related jointly held ideals of participation, peaceful negotiation and generosity within the Pacific (Crocombe, 1976).

The Pacific Way, however, lacked meaning at the village level within the Pacific (Crocombe, 1976) and in essence, existed as a vague and elitist ideology useful for political adaption and interpretation (ibid.). Critically considered, the ideology of the Pacific Way could be deemed an attempt to mask the social differences that existed between the Polynesian styled hereditary hierarchies of Tonga, Samoa and Fiji, and the bottom-up Melanesian egalitarian structures

found within Western parts of the Pacific (Lawson, 2013). As it was an ideological notion that gave preference to Polynesian character and political practices at the expense of Melanesian equivalents, Lawson (2013) suggests that this privileging of Polynesian character31 _{may have} been one of the reasons why an alternative, more Melanesian form of identity based discourse emerged within the 1970s, at a time when Melanesian countries were moving towards independence (Lawson, 2013). Centred on an idealised Melanesian way of life, the Melanesian Way surfaced as part of this new ideological discourse.

Championed by Papua New Guinean Bernard Narokobi in the late 1970s, the Melanesian Way attempted to establish a positive Melanesian identity philosophically founded on ancient virtues (Narokobi, 1983). Seeking to blend the best aspects of tradition with modernity and Christianity, this ideological identity was framed by Narokobi as being in opposition to Western culture (Narokobi, 1983; Otto, 1997) and described as being “…a vision of totality, a vision of

cosmic harmony” (Narokobi, 1983, p. 6). Although Narokobi never intended it to be construed as a distinctly Papua New Guinean form of identity, the Melanesian Way was likened to being a liberation movement within Melanesia (Otto, 1997), and within PNG it served as an anti- colonial nation building tool that emphasised the “…respect for the past with openness for

change” (Otto, 1997, p. 60). As evident within the case study context, both the desire for change and the respect for the past remains important to customary landowners.

Hybridity and Innovation

Keesing (1982) suggested the values of community, mutual obligation (reciprocity) and exchange, sharing and caring, and kinship obligation are institutionalised within Melanesian society. Adding to this, within PNG, wontok-ism32 (Golub, 2014) and kastom (Otto & Pedersen, 2005)are recognised as being central traits of culture. Literature also suggests that the ideals of unity, consensus and harmony are often significant to Papua New Guineans (Golub, 2014; Leavitt, 2001). According to Wagner, however, within Melanesia conventions should not be read as codes to be followed ‘…but rather used as the basis of inventive improvisation’, “[t]he controls are themes ‘played upon’ and varied, rather in the way that jazz

lives in a constant improvisation of its subject matter” (1975, p. 88). As explained by Golub, although consensus and harmony may be significant to Papua New Guineans, consensus may be more honoured in breach as opposed to observance: “Competitive and egalitarian,

31 _{And the associated reinforcement of colonial power relations articulated through Pacific Way (Lawson, 2013).} 32

Wantok is Tok Pisin for ‘one-talk’, shared between those of a common tribal identity or language (Barker 2007,

Melanesians often see agreement as a process of opposition to be managed, rather than a

state to be achieved once and for all” (2014, p. 182).

The hybrid ideological space in which Melanesians find themselves is perhaps a rationale for the ‘inventive improvisation’ suggested by Wagner (1975, p. 88). According to Barker,

‘[w]antok networks’, ‘local communities’, ‘modernist institutions’ (being those organisations

funded through the cash economy and unaffiliated to indigenous culture), and ‘imagined communities’ (such as Christendom and ‘indigenous peoples’), all commonly affect the lives of Melanesians, which may result in diverse social outcomes (2007, p. 11). Through this enduring ideological encounter and the knitting together of these influences with local practices, innovation can result. Curry (1999, 2003), for example, argues that indigenous and

introduced economic forms have blended together within PNG to create socio-economic hybrid economies, which can reinforce material symbols of progress and prestige as important development considerations.

The concept of the ‘cargo cult’ can conceptually be drawn on to illustrate the existence of hybridity in connection to development, as well as signalling the diverging meaning of material and non-material objects connected to development within Melanesia (Goddard, 1995). An anthropological term used to refer to the existence of social movements within the South Pacific (Lindstrom, 1993), the notion of the ‘cargo cult’ reflects wide ranging forms of collective

behaviour channelled to achieve a range of collective ends, often invoked through esoteric means (ibid.). Being a pejorative term adopted by the PNG colonial administration within the mid-1940s, the existence of a cargo cult was initially understood to reflect an indigenous desire for material objects. As initially used, the term insinuated “…the inability of indigenous people to understand the origin of goods and the need for hard work” (Connell, 2007, p. 125), laying blame on Papua New Guineans for creating their own ‘underdevelopment’ (Lindstrom, 1993, p. 8). Anthropological accounts of cargo cults have, however, since evolved to encompass more deconstructive accounts of the cargo cult, rendering them to being:

“[S]ubtle culturally specific but hybrid value systems that fused culture, politics, economics, religion and social structure, partly in opposition to imposed systems and partly in their co-option (Lindstrom, 1993), in order to stimulate a culturally appropriate economic and political development” (Connell, 2007, p. 125).

On Lihir Island, Bainton (2010) has recognised the fusion of culture, politics, the economy and religion within social movements, positing that historic social movements can be seen to inform contemporary aspirations for Lihirian development. In the mid-1960s a social

movement described as the ‘Johnson Cult’ arose within southern New Hanover and other parts of New Ireland (refer to Map 1). The central aim of this social movement was to achieve moral equality and fulfil economic development desires for Papua New Guineans through replacing the Australian colonial authority with an American colonial authority (Bainton, 2010). With varying forms of collective action derived from the ‘Johnson Cult’ affecting Lihirians, Bainton rationalises that Lihirian concerns about marginality and social inequality exist as the underlying premise of collective action. Consequently, for Lihirians cargoistic desires were seen to be not solely materialist, but connected to the Lihirian desire for respect, moral equality and social status that were subsequently associated with aspirations for material wealth (Bainton, 2010):

“Through their eyes, we thus begin to see the practical and symbolic qualities of

goods, the social uses to which they can be put, and the idea that things are valued not only for their material uses but because they can be used in social

transactions that establish mutuality and respect” (Bainton, 2010, p. 61).

Sahlins illustrates the innovative hybridities that are found within Melanesia through his notion

of ‘develop-man’ (Sahlins, 2005). Derived as a consequence of mis-hearing defelopman (the

Tok Pisin pronunciation of development in English), Sahlins argues that within the Pacific

“[t]he first commercial impulse of the local people is not to become just like us, but more like themselves” (Sahlins, 2005, p. 23). Through the term ‘develop-man’ Sahlins thus seeks to convey how indigenous people within the Pacific selectively use Western goods, and experiences of capitalism more generally, to strengthen their indigenous ideals of ‘the good life’ (2005, p. 23). His theory does, however, suggest that the strengthening of indigenous forms of the good life through capitalist forms may be transient, being part of a broader shift towards economic development. This process, he argues, can require passing “… through a certain cultural desert to reach the promised land of ‘modernisation’…” (Sahlins, 2005, p. 37).

Egalitarian Unity versus Individual Autonomy

Within PNG, the contradiction between the egalitarian ideal of unity and the influence of individual autonomy that is continually being negotiated (Barker, 2007) is possibly a sign of the cultural desert to which Sahlins is referring above. Martin (2013) believes the tension between egalitarian unity and individual autonomy is captured through the use of the term ‘big-shot’

within PNG, which is a term commonly levelled at the Papua New Guinean elite. As Martin explains, the term ‘big-shot’ exists in contrast to the term for the traditional Melanesian ‘big

obligation and reciprocal expectations to make himself big and of value to his supporters (Burridge, 1975), the ‘big shot’ denies these relationships and separates himself from moral obligation to kin and others (Martin, 2013). The ‘big-shot’ in this sense can be likened to Macpherson’s ‘possessive individual’, being the “…conception of the individual as essentially

the proprietor of his own person or capacities, owing nothing to society for them”

(Macpherson, 1962, p. 3; Martin, 2013).

Martin suggests that in PNG changing social circumstances effectively shift the conditions within which people, such as ‘big shots’, will accept or reject claims of reciprocal obligation (2013, p. 182). Anthropological research undertaken on Lihir Island effectively supports this theory. While the economic benefits of large-scale mining activity have the potential to be extensively drawn-upon through kinship networks, landowners on Lihir have been observed purposefully limiting their social networks in order to restrict wider access to mining derived wealth (Bainton, 2009, 2010). As observed by Bainton (2009), the traditional notions of egalitarianism, reciprocity and obligation are changing on Lihir as a consequence of more individualistic forms of landowner behaviour that seeks to limit the distribution of mining benefits within the Island community:

“Lihirians have begun to realise that sometimes it is better to limit other people’s

claims to ownership to certain items and resources, or forms of wealth and development. Ultimately the epistemologies of capitalism, combined with historical experiences and the interpretation of mining through local cosmologies, have become the reference point for considering individual and collective identities”

(Bainton, 2009, p. 25).

Within this research, the tension between egalitarian unity and individual autonomy manifests as non-elite community-level concerns regarding elite benefit capture, and related forms of community-level discontent with respect to the distribution of mining development benefits across Lihir and Simberi Islands. This, in turn, highlights the complexity of the concept of

‘community’ and its application within the research context. While I often refer to the broader

‘Island Community’ throughout this research, I do not assume that the views or perspectives of

the ‘community’ can be captured within any one singular representative community voice, nor do I assume that the Island Community represents one homogenous entity. As recognised by James et al. (2012, p. 16), communities in PNG have been recognised to be ‘crossed by different overlapping relations’ and traditionally not to have natural or definitive boundaries.

Nevertheless, given that ‘attachment to particular places and particular people’ are salient

generally (ibid, p. 16), reference to the ‘community’ relative to each respective ‘Island Community’ therefore remains appropriate as a descriptive term applied in context to this research.

As recognised by Golub (2014), propelled by indigenous life ways but fuelled by a wider suite of ideological and historical influences and ideals, a desire for both tradition and ‘development’

exists within PNG. This desire forms a part of the wider contextual space that encompasses localised aspirations for wellbeing and development on Lihir and Simberi islands. Within this space, and contrary to the assertion that such forms of development escape definition, being ambiguous and intangible in their form, Connell describes Pacific development aspirations to be clearly expounded in terms of “…needs for health, education, housing, income and so on,

alongside social life and ritual” (2007, p. 129). In PNG such notions of development might be described as ‘real development’, as a consequence of being connected to the needs of the people and tied to locally meaningful cultural values. The opposite to this form of development might further be described as ‘giamandevelopment’ (giaman being Tok Pisin for

false), which characteristically has been interpreted as referring to “…short term or meaningless promises about roads, jobs and cash” (James et al., 2012, p. 10). The following

section canvases the concept of ‘real development’ or meaningful development, by

considering the views and appreciations of wellbeing and development held by local landowners within the research context.