Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Michelle Rooney
(Australian National University)
Vanessa Uiari (Divine Word University)
Stephanie Lusby (La Trobe University)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Roundtables
- Location:
- Hancock Library, room 2.27
- Sessions:
- Tuesday 3 December, -, -
Time zone: Australia/Sydney
Short Abstract:
We invite participants to consider how Papua New Guinean scholars exercise agency within the hegemonic structures of anthropology. How can we recalibrate our practise to better value Indigenous epistemology? How can these processes be used to amplify Indigenous scholarship?
Long Abstract:
Papua New Guinean scholar, Steven Winduo (2000), argues that Oceania is a contested space in which colonial and Indigenous scholarly discourses compete but in which the colonial erasure of Indigenous self-representation and culture amounts to epistemic violence. In this roundtable we look toward an anthropological practice in Papua New Guinea that acknowledges its own hegemonic norms and systems as violent, including through complicity in the erasure and disenfranchisement of Indigenous scholars. Our questions focus on Papua New Guinea because as subjects, Papua New Guineans have shaped canonical ethnographies that inform key theoretical themes in anthropology such as gift exchange and gendered personhood. These scholarly texts have also shaped the historical and contemporary portrayals of Papua New Guineans. Academic and policy discourses in Papua New Guinea are deeply rooted in colonially and anthropologically shaped scholarly apparatus. However, and despite an awakening in recent years of Papua New Guinean scholarship and writing more broadly, there remain lacunae in how these writers are recognised and amplified. In this discussion, we ask what might it look like to destabilise and recalibrate accepted anthropological practice in ways that are better grounded in an acknowledgement of the tensions between colonial/western and Indigenous scholarly discourses? How do we value and prioritise questions of agency, legitimacy, access and Indigenous epistemology in these processes? Finally, how do these questions open spaces for scholars to reflexively consider race, gender and ongoing processes of colonialism and efforts toward decolonisation in anthropology, and more broadly?
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Tuesday 3 December, 2019, -Paper short abstract:
The study of Pacific cultures is a process of self-affirmation, reinsertion, and reclaiming of values that are productive and transformative.
Paper long abstract:
The conceptual framework in which Pacific peoples view themselves should be critically analyzed. The conceptual frameworks are thought of as the "structures of feeling" and are directly influenced by the cultures and knowledge systems of the Pacific peoples (Williams 1977). Culture in the Pacific is constructed in a distinct way from the larger Asian countries. The study of Pacific cultures is a process of self-affirmation, reinsertion, and reclaiming of values that are productive and transformative. Hau'ofa's view of the world of "Oceania" is that it is a vast and complex network of relationships: "It should be clear now that the world of Oceania is neither tiny nor deficient in resources…They are once again enlarging the world, establishing new resources base and expanded networks for circulation" (Hau'ofa 1993, 11). In seeking to understand the various trajectories that created closures among the nations and peoples of the Pacific we need not limit ourselves to national boundaries, one or two of the ethnic categories in the Pacific, in specific disciplinary emphasis and on individual contributions in scholarship, but extent our perspectives on collective expressions . Our intention is to centre our discussions around the problematics of agency of the indigenous in Pacific Studies research. I hope this is more a dialogic engagement rather than a position to defend all the time in our research activities.
Paper short abstract:
In this paper, I explore agency and resistance in the context of writing an ethnography on the Kokoda Trail, as an insider, in ways that contest taken-for-granted and hegemonic notions that the trail is only significant because it is a hallowed Australian World War II heritage site.
Paper long abstract:
In this paper, I explore agency and resistance in the context of writing an ethnography on the Kokoda Trail in ways that deconstruct and recalibrate taken-for-granted notions that the trail is only significant because it is a hallowed Australian World War II heritage site. The paper explores how I call-out epistemic violence in writing in ways that resist hegemonic Kokoda Trail discourses by: exploring local meanings in culturally-mediated understandings of tourism and development; re-inscribing traditional place names; re-designating local significances to places; tracing the origins of informants from their own stories, and; validating my own feelings of trepidation in usurping colonial labels like 'indigenous' with ones like 'autochthonous'. I attend to examining recalibration in writing an ethnography grounded in local understandings of being-at-home along the Kokoda Trail, for 525 autochthonous 'Isurava' people living in the Iora Creek valley, and how these contrast with being-at-war along the Kokoda Trail. I discuss the value of this wherein the canonical methodologies of anthropology is deployed in fields outside of the discipline, in order to understand and address contestations violence, and dispossession, in epistemic and every day contexts.
Paper short abstract:
I consider the tensions in being a settler-colonial anthropologist in PNG, being an early career scholar navigating academic employment, and efforts to work in ways that destabilise colonialist and exclusionary practices that reverberate through academic structures and ways that knowledge is valued.
Paper long abstract:
In this paper I reflect on practicing solidarity and decolonisation as a white early career scholar working in Papua New Guinea. In recent times, there has been an amplification of the ways in which traditional structures of scholarship in colonial and settler-colonial countries marginalise academics and scholarship from outside of Western institutions. To 'do no harm' in anthropology now means more than behaving ethically towards research participants. It is a call to destabilise exclusionary and violent practices that are inherent in ways that different forms of knowledge and scholarly practice have historically been valued. This means rejecting and reframing what Eve Tuck (2009) has called 'damage centred research' that, even when intended as a way to leverage resources by drawing attention to problems, actively reinforce colonialist depictions of deficit and lack (Stella 2007). These conversations also traverse uncomfortable discussions around whose work gets cited, who is invited to speak on panels and why, and who gets employed—or indeed, who gets employed in academic roles that affords them the opportunity to write. In Papua New Guinea, where research visas are contingent on proof of local 'partnerships' and the guidance, insights and relationship brokering by Papua New Guinean scholars is critical to successes of international researchers, there are also questions of how different inputs to a project are valued. Here, I raise these questions with the intention of challenging collective practice and hearing what ethical and decolonised anthropology means for Papua New Guinean and other scholars.
Paper short abstract:
This paper will explore the problematic nature of the public-private divide in scholarly discourse. . I argue that the divide is very much gendered and privileges the male gender as well as Western notions of how human interactions and behavior are structured between the private and public spheres.
Paper long abstract:
This paper will explore the problematic nature of the public-private divide in scholarly discourse. Two decades ago, my doctoral research explored this divide which is largely taken as a given in most anthropological literature on PNG. I found this problematic based on my insider knowledge and lived experience as an indigenous Papua New Guinean, and more so as a woman whose experience did not quite 'fit" into this schematic scholarly divide of the public and private sphere. This paper intends to explore the problem of private-private divide, and how this informs my understanding of women's role in decision-making and women in leadership in PNG. I argue that the divide is very much gendered and privileges the male gender as well as Western notions of how human interactions and behavior are structured between the private and public spheres. The paper will furthermore critique how this discourse has influenced research and literature on women's political participation in PNG and generally in Melanesia, and bring to the fore the importance of recognising indigenous women's agency in leadership and decision-making, and society more broadly.
Paper short abstract:
Where should the responsibility for long term human well-being lie? Are there clear parameters of inclusivity and exclusivity in PNG development projects and programs? These seemingly rhetorical questions will guide a critical re-examination of how development projects and programs might be framed.
Paper long abstract:
Where should the responsibility for long term human well-being lie? Are there inherently clear parameters of inclusivity and exclusivity in PNG development projects and programs? These seemingly rhetorical questions shall guide a critical re-examination of how development projects and programs might have been framed and perhaps abysmally, in the history of the region so far. The discussion is intended to generate questions on how projects and programs are conceived and delivered, arguably with minimal foresight on long term human well being. Using experiences from three recent engagements on projects and programs imposed on local cultural contexts and engaging locals as 'participants' in the programs, I will discuss how these state projects and programs actually overlooked critical human well being, particularly cultural, into the future. The three projects were/are: 1) Koitaki, including Sogeri, Itikinumu, Catalina and Elolo rubber estates of the Sogeri valley, 2) the forced self-help customary land transactions at the Taurama valley of the National Capital District, Port Moresby, 3) the application of the MotuKoitabuan cultural notion of Tabu at Napanapa, west of Port Moresby harbor. All three are in Papua New Guinea. Ultimately, the nub of the argument might be that development projects and programs framed so far lacked foresight insofar as long term human well-being is concerned. These cases are by products of related colonial government sponsored agendas; an urbanized city of Port Moresby, a tax-related revenue generating agricultural program, and a state-sponsored program on land dispossession and acquisition. All three were state related agendas.
Paper short abstract:
The term 'agency' invokes notions of action and thought that are independent of the structures that socialise and constrain individuals. Used ethically, reflexive auto-ethnography is one way that PNG scholars can exercise agency and make important scholarly contributions within multiple structures.
Paper long abstract:
The term 'agency' invokes notions of action and thought that are independent of the structures that socialise or constrain individuals. For many Papua New Guinean (PNG) scholars, exercising agency involves navigating through our identities as members of PNG society and Western-based scholarly institutions. The arrival into scholarship is often through formal Western based education systems in which concepts like decolonising and Indigenous methods are backgrounded. The new scholar's journey involves multiple discoveries, including sensory and affective responses, of the self, and the self within the scholarly 'other'. There is delight in the novelty of learning about our people in texts written by foreigners. There can be trauma when we learn about the colonial violent past and its continuing legacy. There is the uneasy realisation that 'decolonising' and 'Indigenous' methods resist and destabilise the epistemic violence of Western scholarship that we are socialised to value. Internalising these new insights invokes feelings of self-indignation over ones lack of prior knowledge. In this paper, I discuss my use of reflexive auto-ethnography to narrate, navigate, overcome challenges, and embrace opportunities in my research. Often dismissed as self-indulgent or lacking scientific rigour, reflexive auto-ethnography is certainly not applicable to all scholarship or fieldwork circumstances. I argue that it is consistent with decolonised, indigenous, and anthropological methods. Used ethically, reflexive auto-ethnography is a powerful tool for PNG scholars to exercise agency, while making important scholarly contributions, within the structures we encounter in our cultural and social settings, and in Western based scholarly institutions we operate within.