The social structure a Koro

The social structure within which Fijian villagers live warrants a brief overview because

o f its influence on the diffusion o f new ideas in the village. Most Fijian villages have

an ordered social structure, even in villages close to urban areas (Overton, 1988: 90-91).

Traditional status is ordered and complex but still well recognised by both rural and

urban Fijians today (Overton, 1988: 90; Kasper et al., 1988: 27). The village chief and

his mataqali which is both a social unit and a landowning unit rank above all others in

the village. Even within small groupings there are some element of hierarchy (Overton,

1988: 90).

The stratified social structure was portrayed vividly on my second day (7th September,

1989) spent in the village, when a village meeting was called by the village chief where

I outlined the intentions o f my study to the villagers. Prior to the meeting the village

chief and his younger brother had been attending a series o f meetings of chiefs of the

province o f Tailevu at the investigator's village, where the chief o f Koro and his brother

were informally requested permission to have my research conducted in their area. On

5th September they were formally and traditionally requested.

The seating arrangement reflected each individual's status in the village social structure.

A few men sat in a horseshoe facing the tanoa (traditional wooden bowl) of yaqona

(made from the piper methysticum plant). The village chief sat at the apex, flanked on

either side by heads o f each mataqali (social unit), according to rank. Behind the tanoa

o f yaqona sat the rest o f the village men, silent, serious and listening. Preparing the

yaqona were a group o f men from a particular mataqali whose function was to prepare

this important ritual drink on ceremonial occasions. Behind the men sat the women also

silent and serious. Their location reflected the place o f women outside their homes in

broader society. In a later discussion with men, the following comment indicated the

the hall.

Only a few men actively participated in the meeting and these were the men sitting in a horseshoe in the upper part of the hall. I found that the only way to obtain any information from the women on my research topic was to sit and interact with them individually after the main meeting, for no woman would speak out in a village meeting.

During conversations with people who actively participated in the meeting, I was told that anyone could speak at such gatherings, particularly now that a considerable portion of the adult population have had some secondary education. However, a young woman said:

09404223: We came up with some new ideas and proposed them at a village meeting, but we were told afterwards that it was not our place to speak at such meetings, that there were only certain people who could. Never again would we speak at such meetings.

Apparently the rigidity of the system discouraged new initiatives and resourcefulness on the part of educated young women. One woman recounted the following story:

09108233: The health worker needed equipment and supplies such as bandages, cotton wool, lint for the village dispensary. The chiefs wife called a meeting of all village women. It was decided that each woman was to contribute some money to finance the provision of supplies for the dispensary. A few o f us were chosen to be part of a committee to collect the money and coordinate all village activities of women. Some of the women in the committee were working and obtained most of the supplies through their contacts at work. After we obtained the equipment and supplies we were told that it was not our place to touch the money without consulting the chiefs wife and other elders. Most of us were 'yalewa vulagi' ('yalewa vulagi' literally means women visitors and usually refers to women from other parts of Fiji who married village men, implying their place in the social structure) and were reminded of the fact. Our work stopped there and then.

The account of another woman also illustrated how social structure constrained action:

10602190: The young women of the village started a young women’s club which aimed at cleaning, beautifying and improving hygiene in the

♦Numbers indicate the identification number and household number o f the respondent to protect his/her

village. We were functioning well, only to be told by the chiefs wife and the other women elders afterwards that we couldn’t function while there was a women's club in the village. That organisation was not working at all. So now there is no organisation functioning.

Among women social structure was also stratified. The older traditional women in the community appeared to monopolise political power, shutting out the young and the educated from any decision-making and, in the process, killing resourcefulness, any new initiatives, innovation and action. There appeared to be a power struggle between the younger, more educated women and the older, higher status women because old women seemed to see any action as motivated by a desire for power and as threatening their own position. Consequently the social structure tended to stifle action. Although the old ways may be eroding, they are still a force to be reckoned with.

b. Basti

The social organisation o f a community could suggest the way in which innovations are diffused among members. Unlike the Fijian village, the Indian community seemed individualistic and egalitarian. According to most of the residents, there was no leader. The wife of a Hindu priest stated:

17701061: There is no leader here. Each family minds its own business.

Even though the settlement was scattered, a few houses clustered together, often as a result o f family feuds. For example, one family had broken up, resulting in one of the married children moving out but settling in his own house close by. In some cases similar family conflicts had led to a house being extended with a married brother's family moving into the new extension, and a few women (9 per cent) aged 15-49 years had brought their husbands and children to their parents' homes after quarrels with sisters or mothers- in-law.

The two communities had quite different social structures. The ordered and stratified Fijian social structure remained important in determining status, despite modernisation. Qualitative evidence indicated how social structure stifled new initiatives and action and perhaps could inhibit the acceptance of new ideas such as the small family norm

and the acceptance of contraceptive use. The Indian community, on the other hand, with its dispersed settlement was more egalitarian and perhaps more conducive to the acceptance of new ideas.

Social structure can also be viewed from the social and kin interpersonal networks as vehicles of information dissemination. There is qualitative evidence to support the notion that kin and social interpersonal networks play an important role in disseminating family planning even in this day of the mass media (Beckman, 1983: 429). Informal social and kin networks both transmit and evaluate information and in addition legitimize new behaviour. The mass media can create awareness and inform but interpersonal communication is more effective in legitimazing behaviour. There is also evidence that the misinformation and negative rumours regarding family planning are spread through social and kin networks (Declerque et al., 1986). Further, Cleland and Wilson (1987) have argued that the diffusion of innovation such as the small family norm and fertility regulation are vital in fertility change.

Networks can be dichotomised into tightly-knit networks whose members are close and almost homogeneous or loosely-knit networks whose members are heterogeneous. Closely-knit networks tend to uphold social norms and have stronger normative pressure. The stronger form of the tightly-knit network could be applicable to the Fijian village where norms are upheld while the weaker form could apply to the Indian community in Basti. This will be examined in the spread of family planning information in the two communities in a later chapter.

4.2.3 Land ownership