PNG Highlands!

Women, the path to fame in the PNG Highlands!

Give and Take: Exchange in Wola Society. By Paul Sillitoe, Australian National University Press, P.O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia.

In this book, Paul Sillitoe

sets out to hang big question

marks on most of the current

anthropological thinking de

voted to the role of the ‘big men’ of the highlands of Papua New Guinea. He believes that this thinking places too much emphasis on groups based on descent, and on the prowess of ‘big men’ as ‘managers’ of such groups. He eschews the term

‘big man’, using in preference

the Wola term ol howma (liter ally: man grass clearing, grass

clearings being the places

where exchanges are carried out).

In contrast to the main stream of thought on this mat ter, Sillitoe holds that the freedom of the individual and his (the gender of the pronoun is relevant) freedom of action are the key elements and values in Wola society. Society as such is held together by a complex and diverse system of exchanges of material valu ables such as pearl shells, pigs and cassowaries, the success of which depends on the co operation of individuals, not permanent groups. The individual strives to achieve fame. Exchange is the means of

achieving such fame. Exchange

thus creates social relations while guarding and encourag ing individual achievement.

Exchange is thus a social rather than an economic phenom enon. The thesis is an attractive one to amateur anthropologists with streaks of both male chauvinism and liberal capi talism (which sums up this re viewer at least). But it is not a very convincing one, even when we examine the data Sillitoe himself presents.

The first point that has to be made is that Sillitoe’s anxiety to prove his thesis makes this

book, for the most part, not

particularly exciting reading

for anyone other than those reasonably well versed with the thinking he is trying to demol ish. Secondly, this reviewer holds no brief for those anthro pologists whom Sillitoe attacks.

My own criticisms (which I now warn readers of PIM will be boringly academic) will probably be regarded by both camps as heretical.

My first criticism is that, if Sillitoe is to frighten off the general reader with his barrage of detailed description, com plex maps and intricate dia grams, he might at least pander

to the specialist by actually

analysing the profusion of data. For example, a diagram on page 253 shows how much each man in Sillitoe’s area of study borrowed and lent.

Almost no use or analysis of this data is visible in the text.

But it can be calculated from this data that the top 12 ol howma borrow 25% more than they lend, whereas the 29 least important men lend 75% more than they borrow. The same ol howma also have twice as many wives as we might expect if this resource were distributed

evenly (p 134).

Clearly, there is an import ant concentration of power, wealth and factors of pro duction in the hands of the ol howma. The acquisition of wives, Sillitoe claims, is merely evidence of ‘an ability to handle wealth which is already present’. I would claim that it not only increases a man’s

social obligations (leading to

fame) but also his ability to maintain and expand such links even further.

Secondly, Sillitoe’s argu ments on the sanctity of the individual are distinctly chicken-eggish. Individuals go for their lives, yes, but only for those goals which are socially determined as desirable. So which comes first? My guess is for the Eve-chick of individual

i striving, with the egg of social control weighing more and more stickily and heavily as the economy is altered by environ mental, demographic and

externally-induced political

circumstances.

Thirdly, Sillitoe argues that I ol howma do not ‘manage’ the ordinary Wola, but admits they have a merely marginal influ ence on decisions. That sounds rather like the argument that the management of a casino only has a 2% advantage on the players of blackjack: every body wins, the bank winning slightly more. At its best, Silli toe’s argument is that the Wola are marginally more atomistic than other highland groups. I do not see the need for 300 pages of discussion on such a

point.

Basically, Sillitoe’s avoid ance of economic arguments prevents him from examining the dynamism of the exchange system. He mentions that loans bear a 100% interest rate. How on earth are such loans repaid?

How are valuables generated?

Let us examine the valu ables. Pearl shells are not much

good because they depreciate.

Pigs are rather better since they can reproduce (Sillitoe says nothing on this: do they rely on

feral boars, managed breeding

etc?), but they need feeding even when there is no surplus to be stored. Women create wealth, and they also create the links whereby the ol howma can invest such wealth.

Investment in women is both socially esteemed and econ omically sound. This is es pecially true in societies whose staple foods (root crops) are exceedingly difficult to store, and, therefore, to amass.

Indeed, it seems to me that the

fundamental reason why

exchange is so widely esteemed

by many peoples in Papua New

Guinea is a direct function of the lack of storage and alterna tive investment opportunities: oroduction determines social /alues. Women are the key ink. Women are the path to : ame. No wonder the ol howma tmass them. The groups of :ommon interest Sillitoe fails o find are there amongst the

Wola, but by ignoring women

sillitoe comes nowhere near

dentifying them.

Richard

lack son