Dear Editor

Re:: Attitudes to rank and class need to change - Sef Haouli [2]

and: Tongan language causes confusion - Joe Helu [3]

Hierarchy: A problem in thinking about reality

Both Sefita Hao'uli and Joe Helu raised a very interesting issue fundamental to Tongan society. They did so by identifying a problematic formal, substantial and practical link between social hierarchy and language hierarchy in Tongan society. I would like to add, if I may, a few philosophical insights into the discussions.

Language and culture are two sides of the same coin. Culture, like language, varies from one human situation to another. On the one hand, language is a mere instrument of communication. On the other, culture is made up of the most permanent features of all human endeavours. Forms of social activity, institutional practices, values and beliefs are, thus, communicated through language.

One way of examining the problems linking language hierarchy and social hierarchy is to look at the interface of what I call the "imaginary" vertical and horizontal axes of the human situation. Historically, all forms of social activity are spatio-temporally arranged along the horizontal plane, socially differentiated by varying political accesses to economic resources.

On the other hand, in rationalistic terms, human beings tend to idealise, romanticise or fantasise the human situation by projecting it beyond itself to the vertical sphere, as if society is, in reality, hierarchical or stratified and not horizontal, historical or spatio-temporal. This is a form of idealism specifically and a type of rationalism generally, both of which cannot stand logical scrutiny.

Human thinking

Of course, Tonga is not alone in this kind of idealistic or rationalistic thinking, as it is a universal socio-psychological phenomenon. In fact, this is a permanent albeit enigmatic figment in human thinking ...– the world over. As has always been the case, this mind-generated, contradictory element is a common occurrence in academia. This is evident in the reasoning of such great thinkers in the history of thought as Plato, Kant and Hegel, amongst many others.

Even the seemingly respectable modern discipline of sociology has fallen prey to this problem. Many of the materialist sociologists, notably Marxist sociologists, have likened society to a pyramid, where the poor many are thought to be at the bottom or base of the "social heap" (tu...’ungaveve). Non-materialist, culturalist sociologists such as Comte and Weber, as opposed to their Marxist counterparts, were caught up in this vertical, hierarchical, lineal and evolutionary way of thinking.

However, the vertical, hierarchical or stratified view of the human situation has some political usefulness, particularly when it is readily embraced as an effective socio-psychological tool of political control. It is done so as to supplement the exertion of actual power over the control of both human and material resources on the horizontal, historical or spatio-temporal level.

Social separatism

I refer to language hierarchy as fungavaka lea, multi-levelled language, which espouses a form of social separatism, politically differentiating social classes in vertical ways. This is obvious in the use of the neutral word kai (eat) demarcated as mama (chew) for commoners, ...‘ilo (knowledge) for chiefs and taumafa (having little or no meaning other than it being a beautiful word) for kings. Politically, language hierarchy, as is social hierarchy, aims to either upgrade or downgrade.

These language levels did not exist at the time of Tu'i Tonga, who combined both ...‘eiki and hau offices in his person, as his rule was sufficiently centralised not to have required such a political instrument. However, the very "divine" (as in Divine Rights of Kings) or religious embodiment of this ancient dynasty was enough of a political apparatus to have legitimised its "secular" existence.

The introduction of language levels did not, however, occur until the creation of Tu...’i Kanokupolu as hau (inheriting it from Tu...’i Tonga via Tu...’i Ha...’atakalaua), when his power base was highly fragmented, so that there was, then, the need for both social legitimacy and political primacy established over the whole of Tongan society. Their fale matapule (administrators), made up mainly of powerful Samoans (who inverted everything that was to do with Tu...’i Tonga, now conducting the affairs of Tonga in what I call the "Samoan way of doing politics"), took upon them the task of creating this new language.

Effective critics

The vertical, hierarchical or stratified mode of operations of Tongan language must not be fused together with another form of Tongan language ...– the language of heliaki ...– which takes place on the horizontal level, involving the exchange of qualities between two closely associated objects, such as la...’a (sun) and tu...’i (monarch) and la...’a-kuo-to or la...’a-kuo-ungafonua (sunset) and mate (death), amidst others. Faiva lea heliaki, as a form of art and literature, can be considered a language within a language, spoken and understood only by a select few, often punake (poets) and matapule (orators).

Critiquing hierarchy as a conflicting fixation in human thinking about reality is not a matter entirely for philosophers. Many of our very own faiva fakaoli (comedians), notably Mosese Niuafe and ...‘Anitelu Funaki, were also effective critics of many of the absurdities underpinning human thinking ...– including social or linguistic hierarchy.

One day Mosese went into one of the government offices and asked the girl at the desk if it was at all possible that he could see the pule (boss). He was told that he had to make an appointment, especially when people of his type were ma...’olunga ("high") -- with serious implications that Mosese, who was certainly unknown and looked unimportant, was ma...’ulalo ("low"). Immediately, Mosese replied, thus: Koe ha? ...‘Oku nofo ia he funga niu! (What! Is he on top of the coconut trees!).

...‘Ofa atu fau,

...‘Okusitino Mahina, PhD

Lecturer in Pacific political economy & Pacific arts

Anthropology

University of Auckland

New Zealand

o [dot] mahina [at] auckland [dot] ac [dot] nz ">o [dot] mahina [at] auckland [dot] ac [dot] nz [4]