4.46 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [93, 19911

and behaviors of the Maori people is not elu- cidated by the notion of cultural invention.

The fact that appearance, not substance, is at issue is perhaps most dramatically illus- trated by the headline that greeted the publi- cation of Hanson’s article in Wellington’s morning newspaper, Thc Dominion, on Febru- ary 24, 1990: “US Expert Says Maori Culture Invented.’’ The A A piece itself briefly became part of the ideological contest of race relations in New Zealand, and appeared to lend sup- port to those who allege that Maori culture as currently represented lacks authenticity and legitimacy. By using the logic of a “strong” version of the invention paradigm, it seems possible to now draw the puzzling conclusion that anthropology is inventing, not only Maori culture, but the backlash against it.

Cultural Invention and the Dilemma of Authenticity

JOCELYN LINNEKIN Department of Anthropology University of HawaiilMacquarie University

In a sophisticated contribution to the liter- ature on the symbolic construction of culture, Allan Hanson (1989) has demonstrated that key tropes in Maori oral tradition were au- thored by European scholars working to fur- ther a now-discredited theoretical paradigm. The essay has generated considerable contro- versy in New Zealand and within anthropol- ogy generally. The reaction to Hanson’s piece raises troubling questions about the public representation and political implications of anthropological work, and the issue of authen- ticity appears to be the crux of the problem. This commentary attempts to clarify the eth- ical dilemma raised by anthropological dis- course about the invention of culture, and to raise the question of resolution.

Both within anthropology and among crit- ics outside the discipline there is a pervasive suspicion that the invention of culture is a po- litically revisionist and anti-native rubric, if not in the explicit statements of particular scholars, then in its implications. The con- cern, at times phrased as an accusation, is that writing about the contemporary construction or “invention” of culture undercuts the cul- tural authority of indigenous peoples by call- ing into question their authenticity. Implic- itly, authenticity is thus equated with the transmission through time of a tradition, that is, an objectively definable essence or core of customs and beliefs (Handler 1986; Handler

and Linnekin 1984). The ethically problem- atic aspect, I suggest, is the way the thesis of cultural invention is portrayed and under- stood outside anthropology. However effec- tively scholars deconstruct authenticity and reveal it to be an intellectual red herring, the concept remains nonetheless entrenched in popular thought and is an emotional, political issue for indigenous peoples, particularly for those who are engaged in a struggle for sov- ereignty.

Hanson’s essay was the subject of a percep- tive piece about modern anthropology in the New York Times (Wilford 1990), but in New Zealand the reportage focused on the article’s implications for Maori, and emphasized the conclusion that Maori culture is invented (see Freeth 1990; Nissen 1990). The N e w York T i m s writer acknowledged Maori anger over the notion of invented tradition but portrayed the controversy as raising questions that “strike a t the very heart of anthropology” (Wilford 199O:C 1 ) . Wilford interviewed George Marcus and Clifford Geertz, among others, about the trend to self-criticism and skepticism in the discipline and related Han- son’s work to other studies of cultural inven- tion. In an article that appeared in Wellington and Auckland newspapers (Freeth 1990), a Washington-based New Zealand correspon- dent summarized Hanson’s article relatively fairly and accurately. However, the intellec- tual issue seems ill-served by the headline, “US Expert Says Maori Culture Invented,” and I doubt that anyone reading only the ab- breviated newspaper summation would be able to make much sense of the theoretical ar- gument. Other articles in the New Zealand press focused on the angry reactions of Maori scholars, who variously attacked Hanson’s portrayal of Maori culture as “shallow” (Grainger 1990) and “static” (Scott 1990). The latter charge seems particularly incon- gruous given the content of Hanson’s essay.

The cultural invention thesis touches a po- litical nerve outside the academy and, indeed, among many anthropologists sympathetic to nationalist causes. The tender point appears to be the analytic deconstruction of authentic- ity when applied to cultural representations asserted by indigenous peoples. This potential political vulnerability is, I suggest, an unin- tended consequence of the cultural invention argument, but one that anthropologists must confront nonetheless. To justify this charac- terization ofthe problem I will consider briefly the conceptual status of authenticity in the lit- erature and in Hanson’s article. An important initial caveat to this discussion is that not all writers on the invention of culture or tradition

COMMENTARIES 447

represent the same theoretical approach, nor does the dilemma of authenticity arise in all such studies. Hobsbawm (1983), for example, unlike Handler and Linnekin (1984), holds to a distinction between “genuine” and “in- vented” traditions. He situates the latter par- ticularly in situations ofrapid social change or discontinuity with the past.

Significantly, Hanson does not cite the Hobsbawm and Ranger volume (1983), which deals with European and British colonial in- vented traditions, as a kindred theoretical project. Drawing on writers such as Clifford (1988), Handler (1984), and Wagner (1975), Hanson elaborates cultural invention as the symbolic construction of social life. The point made explicitly and repeatedly by these au- thors is that culture is an ongoing human cre- ation. Roy Wagner’s (1975) pathbreaking book explored symbolic invention as a general cultural process. Symbolically constructed traditions are therefore not inauthentic; rather, all traditions-Western and indige- nous-are invented, in that they are symboli- cally constructed in the present and reflect contemporary concerns and purposes rather than a passively inherited legacy (Handler and Linnekin 1984; Linnekin 1983).

To my knowledge no anthropologist writing on this topic (with the possible exception of Keesing [ 19891) has said that native models of culture, custom, or tradition are inferior to scholarly representations. At least some schol- ars see cultural invention as iconoclastic and subversive specifically of Western reified con- structs (see Handler and Linnekin 1984; Lin- nekin 1990). Moreover, the postmodernist an- thropologists cited by Hanson have squarely challenged our “ethnographic authority” to define authentic culture (see Clifford 1988; Clifford and Marcus 1986; Marcus and Fischer 1986). In a similar vein, Richard Han- dler (1985) has called for a “destructive anal- ysis” of unreflexive or romanticized dialogues in anthropology. Arguably, it is Western he- gemonic control over discourse that is being undercut in this literature (for a contrary view see Birth 1990).

Given a fair and attentive reading, Han- son’s piece cannot be construed as anti-Maori. His subject is unambiguously the construction of knowledge, scholarly and popular. Hanson dispassionately traces the historicity of the Great Fleet and 10 traditions and reveals an- thropology’s role in their creation. The tone becomes slightly satiric only when discussing European myths such as the Maoris’ descent from wandering Jews. The essay effectively substantiates the contingent and interested quality of tradition by showing that the inter-

ests of both Pakeha and Maori have been played out in changing representations of the Maori past. Taken in context, Hanson’s ar- gument does not trivialize or challenge the au- thenticity of Maori culture. On the contrary, Hanson pointedly addresses the issue: “inven- tions are common components in the ongoing development of authentic culture. . . . inven- tion is an ordinary event in the development of all discourse” (Hanson 1989:899).

Nevertheless, the dilemma remains: al- though Hanson can be absolved from charges of rhetorical ambiguity or obfuscation, the re- ception accorded to his article in New Zealand demonstrates that anthropologists have little control over the process by which our work is publicly represented. Indeed, the logic of cul- tural invention implies that anthropological knowledge is necessarily available to various contending parties, native and anti-native, to use in pursuit of their own ends. Media por- trayals tend to apply the cultural invention ar- gument against indigenous claims about tra- dition; the general public understands “in- vented” to mean “made up,” that is, not gen- uine. Handler has described authenticity as “a cultural construct of the modern Western world” (1986:2) that both anthropologists and nationalists see “as proof of national being” (1986:4). And that is precisely the problem. What many anthropologists view as an ad- vance in cultural theory can be read popularly as “destructive” of native claims to cultural distinctiveness.

It is not merely fortuitous that the New York Times writer sought to place Hanson’s essay in the context of contemporary anthropological theory, while journalists in New Zealand’s capital emphasized the invention of Maori culture-this in the sesquicentennial anniver- sary year of the Treaty of Waitangi, as Maori land claims are being contested in New Zea- land and Maori culture is an issue in the strug- gle. The dissonance between author’s intent and political reading arises when cultural in- vention is explored in contemporary nation- alist contexts, for in such situations both sides view cultural authenticity as the legitimating charter of group identity. Both sides see con- tinuity with the past as a test of validity and genuineness to be applied to indigenous asser- tions about cultural identity (see Clifford

The allegedly revisionist implications of the cultural invention argument have occasioned heated dialogues among anthropologists as well as criticisms from outside. Thus far, the disciplinary critics of cultural invention have not pointed to a resolution, other than the sim- ple and obvious injunction, “don’t write about

1988:337-340).

448 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [93, 19911

that.” Even leaving aside scholars’ character- istic antipathy to suggestions of censorship, observing this apparently simple precept is problematic. In some of the areas where an- thropologists do research, avoiding the issue of invented tradition may be difficult. And how far does the avoidance extend? Should we avoid writing about cultural invention as a process, about nationalism, or only about cul- tural invention in nationalist contexts?

Minimally, it does not seem sufficient to ig- nore the political implications of one’s work. I do not say political “consequences,” inciden- tally, because I suspect that the impact of scholarly work on policy and public decision making-for good and for ill-has been over- rated by both proponents and critics of aca- demic research. Nevertheless, there are rhe- torical ways by which anthropologists may at- tempt to gain greater control over the way our work is represented. Modern ethnographers may feel they cannot honestly concur with the antiquity of traditionalized phenomena, but we can avoid saying or implying that today’s culture is invalid or inauthentic. This should be a matter of clarity, of confronting and spe- cifically rebutting such an interpretation (for one such attempt, see Linnekin 1990). An al- ternative research direction is to apply the the- sis of cultural invention equally to Western discourse and to the interaction between in- digenous and colonial cultural representa- tions; it is worth noting that a growing litera- ture in historical anthropology is pursuing such applications. However, Hanson’s writing cannot be faulted for lack ofclarity, and his ar- ticle deals explicitly with the dialectical rela- tionship between Western and Maori con- structions of tradition. The politicized char- acterization of his argument in New Zealand suggests that neither clarity nor self-editing may be effective in forestalling controversy.

The dilemma becomes acutely personal as well as political because the anthropologist’s sense of individual authenticity (see Handler 1986), of being “true to oneself,” often in- volves a commitment to native advocacy, or at least sympathy, as well as a commitment to open inquiry and honest reporting of research results. In the study of cultural invention, an- thropologists may find themselves disagreeing with their informants on issues of tradition and the representation of the cultural past. Uncomfortable as the position may be, an- thropologists may have to accept a liminal sta- tus as questioners both of nationalism and of the dominant political culture, unless they are willing to eschew the study of modern political and social movements.

Notes

Acknowledgments. This comment was written while I was a Research Fellow at Macquarie University in the Schools of Behavioural Sci- ences and History, Philosophy and Politics. It was inspired by discussions in a session enti- tled “Custom Today” at the 1990 meeting of the Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania. I thank Geoff White and Monty Lindstrom for organizing that panel and the session participants, particularly Hal Levine, Margaret Jolly, and Karen Sinclair, for their presentations and dialogues. Thanks also go to Paula Brown, Richard Handler, Allan Hanson, Alan Howard, and Geoff White for comments on antecedent versions. I am espe- cially grateful to Allan Hanson for graciously sharing with me copies of articles from New Zealand newspapers and his responses to them.

References Cited

Birth, Kevin K. 1990 Reading and the Righting of Writing

Ethnographies. American Ethnologist 17:549-557.

Clifford, James 1988 The Predicament of Culture. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus, eds.

1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press.

Freeth, Martin 1990 US Expert Says Maori Culture In-

vented. The Dominion (Wellington), February 24, p. 1.

Grainger, Matthew 1990 Walker Rejects Analysis as Shallow.

The Dominion (Wellington), February 24, p. 1.

Handler, Richard 1984 On Sociocultural Discontinuity: Na-

tionalism and Cultural Objectification in Quebec. Current Anthropology 25:55- 71.

1985 On Dialogue and Destructive Anal- ysis: Problems in Narrating Nationalism and Ethnicity. Journal of Anthropologi- cal Research 41:171-182.

1986 Authenticity. Anthropology Today 2( 1):2-4.

Handler, Richard, and Jocelyn Linnekin 1984 Tradition, Genuine or Spurious.

Journal of American Folklore 97:273- 290.

COMMENTARIES 449

Hanson, Allan 1989 The Making of the Maori: Culture

Invention and Its Logic. American An- thropologist 91:890-902.

Hobsbawm, Eric 1983 Introduction: Inventing Traditions.

I n The Invention of Tradition. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds. Pp. 1-14. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press. Keesing, Roger M.

1989 Creating the Past: Custom and Identity in the Contemporary Pacific. Contemporary Pacific 1: 19-42.

Linnekin, Jocelyn 1983 Defining Tradition: Variations on

the Hawaiian Identity. American Eth- nologist 10:24 1-252.

The Politics ofculture in the Pacific. I n Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in the Pacific. Jocelyn Linnekin and Lin Poyer, eds. Pp. 149-1 73. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

1990

Marcus, George, and Michael M. J. Fischer 1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique:

An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nissen, Wendy1 1990 Academics to Stand Up for Maori-

tanga. New Zealand Herald (Auckland), March 1, p. 20.

Scott, Sue 1990 NZ Historians Scoff at Maoritanga

Viewpoint. Evening Post (Wellington), February 24, p. 2.

Wagner, Roy 1975 The Invention of Culture. Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wilford, John Noble

1990 Anthropology Seen as Father of Maori Lore. New York Times, February 20, pp. CI, c12.

Reply to Langdon, Levine, and L i n n e ki n

ALLAN HANSON Department ofAnthropology University of Kansas

Even if shipwrecked Spaniards settled in New Zealand in the 16th century, that would constitute no refutation of the point that an- thropologists and others of about a century

ago concocted an image of Maori culture that emphasized similarities with European cul- ture, with the agenda of making Maoris ap- pear assimilable into a unified New Zealand society. Langdon’s contention that Spaniards really did settle in New Zealand in the 16th century is a matter for historical research. The thesis is quite speculative.

Levine provides several insights that ad- vance understanding of the Maoritanga move- ment and the general political situation in New Zealand today, butjust how these add up to a critique of my argument is not clear. He states that I “misconstrue the ‘culture’ that is being ‘invented’ ” and miss the point that the debate about Maori tradition has to do ulti- mately with reinterpreting “the nature, legit- imacy, and structure of the state itself.” But my claim (1989:894) that Maoritanga aims to transform New Zealand into a bicultural so- ciety does not seem so very different from this. Levine also criticizes me for not dealing with why Maoris have embraced certain con- structs, such as the Great Fleet and the 10 cult, rather than other alternatives. I did not ad- dress this issue because it is somewhat beside the specific purpose of my article. Neverthe- less, how and why particular “traditional” forms emerge and gain acceptance is an im- portant question, and Levine provides some very useful information on it. Particularly co- gent is his discussion of how Waitangi Tri- bunal hearings on the pollution of reefs pro- duced a transformation of the Maori concept of taonga (valuables, treasures), which in turn led to the distinction between legal ownership and cultural ownership that became promi- nent in the mounting of the “Te Maori” art exhibition. T o my mind, that analysis, far from constituting a critique of the concept of “culture invention,” is an excellent example of the sort of investigations we should pursue in studying how the process works.

Levine closes with the issue that is the start- ing point for Linnekin’s comment: scholarly discourse about culture invention sometimes gets noticed by the people whose culture we are analyzing, and they tend to get angry about it. I think Linnekin is entirely correct in identifying the crux of the problem to be au- thenticity, and the source of it to rest with the word invention. Confusion arises, as she points out, because “the general public understands ‘invented’ to mean ‘made up,’ that is, not gen- uine.” I do not think, however, that this is just a matter of arcane discourse escaping the con- fines of the acldemy, where it is misunder- stood by the general public. Those who have taken my essay to support any anti-Maori po- sition have certainly misunderstood it, but in