Missionaries And (Or) Anthropologists

Letter to the Editor.

BEFORE proceeding to reply to the letter of “A Catholic Missionary,” published in your November issue, may I request that you alter the title of this foolish controversy from Missionaries or Anthropologists” to Missionaries and Anthropologists”; and that you allow me to refer throughout this letter to the writer who signs himself “A Catholic Missionary” as merely “A.C.M.”

It is greatly to be deplored that A.C.M. has allowed his spirited justification of the Mission he represents to take the form, in part at least, of an ill-considered and hasty attack upon me personally and upon the work of anthropology generally in New Guinea.

For the provocative nature of his letter not only reflects discredit upon himself; but, if we were to take it seriously, would, I think, be calculated to do a grave disservice to the worthy body to which he belongs, and whose great part in advancing native interests in the Ter ritory I have always freely acknow ledged.

Fortunately for the Mission, we who have any real knowledge of the position will not accept the views expressed and the imputations made by A.C.M. as re presentative of the Mission generally, nor his uncompromising attitude as in any way typical of the great body of worthy missionaries in New Guinea. I value too highly the close and understanding per sonal friendship I have enjoyed over some years with such truly noble and utterly self-negating souls as Fathers Bley and Lakaff; treasure too dearly the saintly memory of my beloved Seigneur Louis Couppe (first Bishop at Vunapope) whose autographed photograph has a permanent place on my writing-table; appreciate too well, too, the record of service of that large band of broad visioned missionaries of all denomina tions who have given their lives in so many places to the uplift of their fellow men; and recognise too certainly the con tributions to science of such men as Kirschbaum (of the Sepik), Lehner (of Finschhafen), Pater Schmidt, Edwin Smith, and hosts of others, to allow myself to be dragged into an unseemly controversy the outcome of which inevitably will be only misunderstanding, and that will serve no useful purpose.

That the attack of A.C.M. does me per sonal injustice matters nothing. The worst that his attitude can do, however, is to cause a breach in that cordial relationship

that has existed between me and his Mis sion since I first went to Kokopo as Head Teacher of the newly-established Govern ment Native School in 1922, a relationship that I value very highly.

Discussing one of my published reports on certain aspects of the European-primi tive contact situation in New Guinea early this year with His Lordship Bishop Vesters, I was assured that he regarded my views as free of bias, and honest of deduction. “Your work could not be other than that,” concluded His Lordship, who has always extended to me the greatest possible assistance and courtesy, and in my relationship with whom I have always en joyed a certain informality. Strange, then, that A.C.M. should suddenly find in me an enemy of his Mission. “You are rendering a splendid service to the natives of the Territory because the sane and balanced attitude you have adopted commands the attention and respect of all students of and workers among the peoples of Oceania,” wrote another missionary to me from New Guinea recently, with special reference to my publication on Sio Island.

Aside from considerations that are purely personal, however, it is certain that no good purpose—certainly not the common purpose of native welfare—can be served by a mutually recriminative attitude be tween missionary and anthropologist. Even A.C.M. insists on the need for understand ing the basis of the native societies amongst whom his missionaries work. How otherwise could the Mission succeed in planting the roots of the Christian teach ings firmly into the soil of native life?

There is not to-day, nor ever has been, any real quarrel between the social anthro pologist and the missionary.

The best missionary, from the native viewpoint, and the most successful from the Christian angle, is the one who, follow ing the method of the enlightened and trained field-anthropologist, works in har mony with the native, understands his life and organisation, and so attunes his mind to the primitive mental key. Conversely,

the least successful missionaries are those who do not give recognition to this idea in their approach to the native. That there are some of the latter type in New Guinea

to-day is of course known to anyone who has moved about with open mind and observant eye.

But there surely is no more need for me to justify the anthropological method than there is for A.C.M. to justify the Mission.

If A.C.M. wants to know, once for all, where I stand with regard to the Mis sionary enterprise, he need only turn up the “Rabaul Times” of March 9, 1934, to read this unequivocal statement: “I have always been on terms of understanding with the Missions of this Territory, and have expressed belief in their work, though I may have found it necessary occasionally to criticise their methods.”

In the Islands to-day one must be either FOR the Mission or AGAINST it; there is no middle road. And I am and always have been for it; not because of considera tions of personal friendship or privilege; not because the missionary organisation is above reproach (none but the type of mis sionary repesented by A.C.M. would claim that); but wholly and solely because, in the situation of European-primitive impact and clash, the Christian mission is the one body that has stood with singleness of pur pose on the side of the native.

This does not mean that I am blind to missionary weaknesses or that I have al ways found agreement with individual mis sionaries in their methods. My special con cern being for the native, inevitably and frequently there have arisen situations in which I have found myself (acting in what I regarded as the natives’ interests) in disagreement with the missionary. And, notwithstanding the suggestion to the con trary made in the letter of A.C.M., I have always discussed such matters freely with the missionary concerned; and, much to the disappointment of those who hoped to find in my critical attitude support for their own unremitting opposition to all aspects of missionary work, I have always refrained from putting these matters of disagree ment into published form!

It is only because of this rule imposed upon myself that I refrain at present from accepting the foolish challenge of A.C.M. to “point to a single good or indifferent custom or habit that has been interfered with by a Catholic Missionary.” If, how ever, the challenge becomes insistent, then I must reluctantly break the rule. A.C.M. makes a big mistake, if he believes that in the 2½ years I have spent in native villages, enjoying the confidence of the natives, I

have not gained a thorough understanding of missionary methods and the reaction of natives to certain aspects of the missionary approach.

Now, to deal with the points in A.C.M.’s letter. First, the statement that the article in September P.I.M., entitled “Uncoordinated Mission Effort,” was “evident ly inspired by and based on a misleading statement made in Sydney by Mr. W. C, Groves.”

I am not seeking shelter in the customary old plea of wrong report. What I said to the Sydney pressmen (who sought me out at the wharf) is precisely what I meant, and the most responsible of the large dailies reported me almost verbatim. So I was correctly reported. That the P.I.M. chose to refer to the statements I made, paraphrasing them pretty broadly, is no affair of mine. Actually, I thought the P.I.M. article a very reasonable plea for the recognition of an obvious need —that of co-ordination, under Government guidance, of certain aspects of missionary efforts to wards native development.

Now let us look at the press statement referred to —not to defend me, but to show that A.C.M. has hastily jumped to erro neous conclusions.

Sydney “Sun,” 31/7/34:

“That the Missions should appoint organisers of joy among the natives was the suggestion made by Mr. W. C. Groves ... who returned to-day by the Macdhui “He arrived at this conclusion after working: on the New Guinea mainland, where he studied the effects of Missions on native society. Mr.

Groves said that, although primitive culture had broken down, satisfactory substitutes, he con sidered, had been provided, and that his conclusions were favorable to the Missions.

“Primitive society was dead, but to-day new economic enterprises were in progress. ... A spirit of joy, however, was required. The people did not play.”

The same idea was expressed in perhaps less staccato terms in the Melbourne “HERALD” of 18/8/34: “As a result of European contact and the attachment of the natives to the new adjustment inspired by the Christian missionaries, there appears to be an absence of that robust joy which is characteristic of the primitive Melanesian peoples.

It would appear that future educational agents should concentrate upon this aspect.” (Black type here is mine.—W.C.G.).

Now let us look at the P.I.M.’s paraphrase, which, mark you, formed only an incidental refer ence in the whole long article, and could not by any stretch of reasonable imagination be regarded as “inspiring” the said article, as A.C.M. assumes it to do:

“When Mr. Groves ... returned to Sydney the other day ... he used a striking phrase: ‘The missions have done and are doing good work . . . .’ he said, ‘but every mission should have attached to it an organiser of joy—someone who can supply the natives with occupations for their minds and bodies which will take the place of the songs and dances which we have forbidden.’ ”

All these quotations represent my conclusions after reviewing the whole of my work amongst the natives. And there is not one word in my original statement that I do not stand by still. I am afraid that I cannot be untrue to myself and my work even to avoid your anger, A.C.M.

A.C.M. suggests that we seek the opinion of the native old men of Matupi and Nodup as to their satisfaction with the present order. One needs, in missionary as in anthropological work, a wider horizon than that of Matupi and Nodup. My work is concerned not with these semi-Euro peanised people, but with the large body of village natives into whose lives European influences have filtered with socially-dis integrative results, and for whom some new form of adjustment is necessary. Towards this adjustment the various Missions are making their particular contribution.

Nevertheless, I can introduce A.C.M. to old men in New Ireland to-day who do not share the complacency and satisfaction with the new order that his old native friends of Blanche Bay appear to enjoy But that is inevitable, and the concern of anthropology, as of the Mission, is with the living present and the hopeful future rather than with the dying past.

Well, now, Mr. Editor, that would seem to have disposed effectively of the matters of my attitude to the missionary enterprise and the statement to the press. There remains the other imputation made by A.C.M., which is very personal in nature, and, in a world of gentlemanly intercourse and tolerance, is in decidedly bad taste. My reply is simple, unequivocal, and direct: I say to A.C.M. that his statement that “Mr. Groves was so liberally and gratui tously helped by the Missions in his educational and scientific work in the Territory’’ is mischievous and untrue There is nothing more to be said.

As to gratitude, in all my publications I have expressed appreciation of and thanks for missionary friendship and co-operation where these have been sought and secured.

Indeed, my forthcoming Report, vide "Oceania’’ for December, is largely a list of acknowledgements to missionary organisations and individuals. (For his satisfaction, Mr. Editor, I shall send a copy of that Report through you, to A.C.M. when it is available.) And the Introduction to my book on native education, which is still in the writing, pays the following tribute to those missionary-teachers with whom I became acquainted during my special re search in schools in the Territory: “The true missionary zeal, the readiness to serve in the cause of native development (and through educational work in particular), of these men and women, constituted the most valuable potentiality and the most promising starting-point for the revision of native educational policy and practice in New Guinea.” Surely there is no lack of appreciation there. It may also interest A.C M. to know that I was associated (as anthropologist, with Professor Elkin of Sydney) with the United Missionary Council of Victoria its recent public demonstrations in the Melbourne Town Hall in connection with the Centenary celebrations.

It is indeed consoling to me to know that the bond of understanding that exists be tween me and the members of the various Missions who have become my friends through our mutual interest in native life

and welfare will not be weakened by the foolish attitude and baseless charges of

A.C.M.

In all my work in New Guinea, I have tried to maintain a balanced view; to formulate conclusions along rational, scien tific lines; and to suggest lines of practical application. And I believe that mission aries generally in New Guinea who are perplexed by the problems confronting them in their work, appreciate this atti tude.

Why go on? I begin to wonder if it would not have been more dignified and more useful to have ignored the attack of A.C.M. and left the matter to the common sense and trust of my host of missionary friends.

Let me conclude, then, with a plea for impartiality and sweet reasonableness amongst those whose chief concern after all is the native; that the problems inci dental to their interest be treated dispas sionately and impersonally. Above all, let us not lose our sense of proportion, or (those who have one) of humour.

This regrettable controversy has at any rate, Mr. Editor, served two useful pur poses: first, it has afforded me opportunity to state clearly where I stand in relation to the missionary enterprise; and second, it has, I think, demonstrated to all with unbiassed view that the voice of A.C.M. is not that of the Mission in New Guinea generally, nor of the particular body he so aggressively and uncompromisingly serves.

I am, etc.,

W. C. Groves.

Melbourne,

7th December, 1934.