Table of Contents
For quite some time the Polynesian hierarchical systems seemed to be so simple. They were formed through chiefly lineages, in which a system of primogeniture reigned. Those, who were genealogically closest to the gods were also socially superior, and this divinely derived superiority was inherited from first born to first born (Koskinen 1960; Sahlins 1958). This normative notion of early anthropological literature has found its way to the islands through the literary interpretations of western anthropologists to such a degree that it has been constantly recollected in the field. But the origin of this kind of account cannot be found in anthropological interpretations only. In the Cook Islands one of the most important literary sources for the people of their own culture is “The Genealogy of the Kings of Rarotonga and Mangaia”, published by W.W. Gill in 1890. It is a compilation which attempts to link together all the fragments of genealogical information Gill was able to collect during his long stay as a missionary in the islands. It can be regarded as one of the prototype interpretations of its kind, quickly followed by a number of genealogical accounts of the history of the archipelago.
The interest behind these accounts was historical. They represented an attempt to reconstruct the past movements of people and “tribes” from one island to another. The use of genealogies for this kind of purpose was based on the presupposition of a normative patrilineal succession. It was this succession which was the basis of the linkages between different genealogical fragments and thus in fact complete historical reconstruction. Interestingly enough, the Europeans first systematically interested in genealogies were colonial officials occupied in the first great task of their administration: the organization of land rights. The normative legitimating power of the genealogies increased with this help from outsiders, which explains the later interest of the islanders in their “complete” genealogies.
Of course in Bourdieuan outward oriented discussion emphasizing the normative aspect of culture, it is easiest to explain the intricacies of a social system in simplified, normative terms (Bourdieu 1977:18). This simplification, however, decreased the number of the legitimating and hierarchy-establishing qualities in a significant way. Relative age and genealogical proximity are of course, legalistic arguments, but culturally genealogies contain much more, and the legitimation of a hierarchy is dependent on a much wider scale of qualities.
Although in principle a simple distinction, the elder/younger — the basis of seniority — opposition has been the subject of refined analysis. The discussion about the relationship between the elder and the younger has culminated in the opposition between prescription and performance, “historylessness” and historical character of the society. This is especially emphasized by Valerio Valeri (1990). In his comparison of Hawaiian and Tongan societies he found in Tonga “a refusal to tolerate (or perhaps acknowledge) hierarchical ambiguities in the elder/younger relationship” (Valeri 1990). According to his interpretation this is in total contrast to the Hawaiian situation, where history enters the chiefly rivalry in a more direct way. There the younger person can take possession of a chiefly position without being transformed into a senior person, which is what happened in the mythical case of ‘Aho‘eitu in Tonga. After the heavenly inversion, the younger brothers of Hau do not, according to Valeri, even dream of taking the position of Tu‘i Tonga. The stable Tongan normative system thus negates history, and reproduces the mythical transcendent situation again and again. To this he sees the Hawaiian system standing in complete contrast. There the younger brother can be a chief as younger and does not need to be transformed into a senior brother.
The Hawaiian chiefly system is immanent, not transcendent; unstable, not stable and, accordingly, the systems of legitimation in these societies must correspondingly stand in opposition to each other. In Tonga it is the genealogy; in Hawaii the historical performance of the king which forms the basis of the legitimation of his position. Tonga thus seems to correspond to the ideal-typical image of early anthropology.
Aletta Biersack has complicated this situation with her emphasis on the Tongan distinction between “blood” and “garland”. The garland is the title, which, according to her interpretation, can be acquired as well as inherited. In the famous case of Tupou I the ability of the Tongan Hau to dream and even take the position of Tu‘i Tonga was well manifested (Biersack 1990). Valeri’s notion about the historyless Tongans and the historical Hawaiians is thus a normative image based on the prevailing mode of political ideology in the islands. This structural difference is of course an important one, but structures apart, both societies seem to be historical, and have been able to produce new political constellations even against the rules or ideological norms. The stereotypic reproduction is not the predominant mode of historical reproduction even in Tonga.
In all their complexity the Polynesian hierarchical systems cannot be fully comprehended by uncomplicated models. The number of possible opposing factors acting as hierarchy-generating operators has been and still is very large. The more complex versions of the normative system promoted and made famous by, for example, Marshall Sahlins (1981) add to the principal distinctions of human/divine, younger/elder the third pair: foreign/autochthonous. According to Sahlins, the power is from abroad; it is foreign to the people and the society, and thus transcends the limits of ordinary human beings. The foreignness of the power, however, requires the creation of a bond between the power and the people, and thus marriage and gender distinctions begin to play an important role. It is possible to go still further, and look for differences in foreign power and different kinds of relations between this foreigner and the people of the land. Highly stratified and politically relatively unified Hawaii and Tonga, with the focus of their political life in the relationship between chiefs and the people, blur the distinctions between, for example, the different islands and the systematic qualitative differences which the people themselves attribute to these. With this in mind, I will in the following look into the hierarchical relationships in the southern Cook Islands and the interplay of genealogical and other cultural operators.