Dear Editor

Re. Operations of things as they really are vs. Their imaginings as we would like them to be

With deep admiration and sincere appreciation, I would like to thank Mr Thomas Monson Uata, PhD Scholar, Capella University, for his thoughtful reflection "Forces of social change " [2], 21 Sept., 2005) on some aspects of my brief philosophical exposition of the problematic relationship between language hierarchy and social hierarchy as opposed to reality in Tongan society.

The undying concerns of Mr Uata to better comprehend the "complexity of our society and culture" -- especially so the "forces that drive changes in our culture" -- are both genuine and legitimate. They are too my burning desires, and, I believe, the urges of many if not all of us in academia.

Mr Uata...’s request that I clarify certain areas that I previously remarked upon is well-taken and perfectly legitimate, in view of gaining "a deeper understanding of our Tongan culture". I find the task somehow insurmountable, given the constraints of time and space, not to mention human limitations. This is reminiscent of the preacher...’s allegorical reference to the Bible as moana loloto ta...’etakele, i.e., unfathomable, "bottomless" ocean!

Ways of being versus ways of knowing

The trouble is that, many of us in academia tend to give primacy to the "epistemological questions" (i.e., ways of knowing) over and above the "ontological questions" (i.e., ways of being), when the reverse should logically be the case. Symbolically speaking, the former preoccupation is a clear case of "putting the cart before the horse". Primarily, our observations are concerned with the independent operations of things in reality, and not with what we would prefer them to be.

One example of this problem of order of precedence is evident in the field of education in the Pacific, including Tonga, where technical, vocational and utilitarian education are made to precede critical, classical and liberal education. In short, practice is forged to take the lead over theory.

Another example is seen in what I call the "model infestation" that has swept Pacific scholarship, where Pacific thinking and practice are "infested" with models, specifically in the fields of education (e.g., USP-led tree of opportunity model) and health (e.g., NZ-based, Pacific-sanctioned fonofale model). There is lack of formal, substantial and practical connections between the model, modelling and modelled -- as opposed to the Tongan way of modelling called heliaki (model) -- where relations of exchange between objects are made (or "modelled") in either qualitative or associative or both terms.

A PhD scholar in statistics at this University, Helu (Joe Langitoto Helu), and I are currently working on a critique of this rather unexamined yet dangerous trend in Pacific scholarship. Of course, this kind of "model infestation" (or "infection" for that matter) is on the ascendance the world over, and it is "infesting" the works of academics within and across the whole disciplinary spectrum.

By the way, both Marx and Engels, fell into this trap, saying that the chief task for us is not to interpret the world but to change it. However, the co-called critical theorists, informed mainly by Marxism, remedied this flaw by paying equal attention to both interpretation and transformation of social conflicts, involving the critical examination of social contradictions and political emancipation of the oppressed from the oppression of the oppressors.

Culture and history: Complexity and change

Heraclitus of Ephesus, well-known for his pluralist philosophy, treated reality as an infinitely complex situation, and as such we must always "expect the unexpected". His reasons being that reality, be they nature, mind or society, is hard to know, and it always pays to be a pessimist rather than an optimist. Central to his philosophical pluralism is the idea that reality is underpinned by exchange, process and cycle. This is reflected on many of his ideas such as: "You cannot hop into the same river twice" and "Reality is an Ever-living Fire, with measures kindling and measures going out".

Mr Uata is undeniably right in saying that both culture and history are complex human phenomena, both of which take place in society. From a realist philosophical angle, complexity is taken to be intrinsic to social existence -- and not, as both idealists and rationalists would argue, a result of the evolution of society -- problematically assumed to take place from some simple, "primitive" human arrangement towards some kind of complex, "advanced" total social morality, ultimate political ideology or final progressive rationality.

This problem, as evidently the case in the history of ideas, is the hallmark of the works of both evolutionists and progressivists.

Culture and history are merely human phenomena ...– no more and no less. As complex concepts and practices, culture and history are differentiated quite simply by their varying rates of change, where the former is taking place at a slower pace (e.g., taumafa kava or royal kava ceremony) and the latter at a faster rate (e.g., Taufa'ahau...’s liukava or revolution). Basically, the difference is one of pace.

Change, as I see it in general terms, is the constant reconstitution of form and content of things in time and space. Fundamental to all things, in nature, mind and society, is change. Conversely, all things change, and they do so change ceaselessly. This is true of what Professor John Anderson, following the wisdom of old but wiser Heraclitus, says that conflict is everywhere in the social world, and there is nothing above the battle.

The vertical vs. the horizontal

Of all the interesting issues Mr Uata raised, I would like to confine my comments this time around to what I theorise as the "imaginary" vertical and horizontal axes thorough which Tongan society (or indeed any society) is "imagined" (or "modelled") in formal, substantial and practical terms. The imagined vertical and horizontal axes are deployed here as a "model", where human conflicts in the social organisation of production within and across nature, mind and society are to be made meaningful.

While the vertical is taken to mean hierarchy and stratification, the horizontal is made to be synonymous with history and spatio-temporality. Vertical, hierarchical or stratified thinking involves the transcendence of the here-and-now or matters-of-fact to a world of no logical consequence. On the other hand, horizontal, historical or spatio-temporal thinking takes place on the single-level of reality, spatio-temporality or four-sided dimensionality.

This world of no causal relations or logical consequence shares a lot in common with the worlds of myth and dream, where "pure" possibilities are possible. This is true of hypnosis, which begins with a myth and ends with a dream, strictly conditioned by total concentration and complete silence. Apart from that, the whole transformative effect is nevertheless psychoanalytic, therapeutic or hypnotic in nature.

Idealism and Rationalism vs Realism and Empiricism

Vertical thinking is rooted in Idealism and Rationalism, related brands of philosophy. Whereas Idealism takes the view that reality is mind-dependent, Rationalism propagates the idea that there are levels, higher or lower, than the one level of reality. These idealistic and rationalistic elements have resurfaced in our time, as in relativism, subjectivism, dualism, structural-functionalism and, of late, in feminism, post-structuralism, post-modernism, and social constructivism, amongst others.

Running head-on to Idealism and Rationalism are Realism and Empiricism respectively. The latter, Realism and Empiricism, are grounded squarely on the so-called horizontal level. Realism and Empiricism, unlike Idealism and Rationalism, are rooted on the single level of reality. For Realism, reality exists independently of our knowing; and, according to Empiricism, knowledge comes from our actual experience of reality.

By the same token, error in thinking is a problem of mind but not of reality. So, hierarchical, vertical or stratified thinking is erroneous thinking of or about reality. Similarly, mythological or theological thinking is of the same problematic order.

Horizontality: historicity, spatio-temporality and four-sided dimensionality

I thought I made the historicity, spatio-temporality or four-sided dimensionality formally, substantially and practically connected with horizontality quite clear in my last correspondence, as follows: "Historically, all forms of social activity are arranged along the horizontal plane, socially differentiated by varying political accesses to economic resources". That is, that the spatio-temporal arrangement of the human affairs is taking place on the ground, where the formation of actual social classes is dependent on their concrete struggle over the real control of the resources.

What I meant was, that everything we do in society is done on the horizontal plane, i.e., the single level of reality, spatio-temporality or four-sided dimensionality. In short, we do it in history, i.e., in time and space. Any worlds other than this world -- i.e., the only world you and I know or that we all know ...– is unspeakable, unknowable and, therefore, non-existent.

Horizontality: The case of fahu and ...‘ulumotu...’a

For example, the mutually exclusive, symbiotically-related social institutions of fahu and ...‘ulumotu...’a, held by the eldest sister and brother and their respective descendants, are described in such a way that the sister is ...‘eiki over her brother, who is said to be tu...’a to his sister. As often the case, the ...‘eiki (aristocratic) and tu...’a (commoner) positions of sister and brother are vertically portrayed as ma...’olunga (high) and ma...’olalo (low) respectively.

Philosophically, we can only talk about potentialities in terms of actualities. It simply means that, in order for us to get real, the vertical has to be collapsed onto the horizontal. So, the only way we can speak of or about the vertical positions (ma...’olunga and ma...’olalo) of the sister and brother, is to do so in terms of their horizontal locations ( ...‘eiki and tu...’a) . In doing so, it will become clear that the sister and brother are entitled to distinct yet related sets of actual goods and services, in the broader context of their cultural and historical exchange relations.

I have a hunch that the missionaries were responsible for this kind of hierarchical, vertical or stratified thinking. Consequently, the terms ma...’olunga and ma...’olalo came to have replaced (or fused with) the words ...‘eiki and tu...’a, which are essentially secular in nature.

The exchange of goods and services between sister (koloa) and brother (ngaue) by virtue of both their respective vertical and horizontal positions, ma...’olunga-fahu (falehanga; hanga) and ma...’ulalo-...‘ulumotu...’a ( tokanga; manga), functions to mediate concrete social conflicts between them. In this social exchange relations context, fahu can be defined as the psychological, political and economic manipulation of brother in the economic interest of sister ( pule), and ...‘ulumotu...’a as the psychological, political and economic manipulation of sister for the political advantage of brother (mafai).

Horizontality: The case of Marx and Latukefu

Let me, on this point, reflect on something of relevance to both Marx and Latukefu, who you referred to in your discussion. In his 1974 book, Church and State in Tonga, Latukefu discussed the word kaingangaefonu a, as one of the labels for the commoner class, to literally mean "eaters-of-the-land". This comes from the root word kai (eat), and from which such words as kainga (extended-family kinship, possibly a contraction of kai...’anga [place-of-eating]), keinanga...’anga (place-of-eating), and keikeinanga (food-scraps) are derivatives.

We can entertain here a Marxist interpretation of kainangaefonua, which can be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, it may be a reference to people who, given their poorer social standing, are forced by the inevitability of their circumstances to be kaukaiveve (food-scraps-eaters); and, secondly, it can be considered as a pointer to people, often the weak and the downtrodden, whom the powerful, privileged few depend on economically for their social existence. Whichever way it goes, it simply boils down to a situation of alienation, exploitation, domination and oppression.

In Tonga, we seem to have the tendency to symbolise these real alienating, exploiting, dominating and oppressive situations to mean piko e tu...’a, holo e uma, heke...’aki e kili, a...’u ki he kaimongea, fulutamakia he kaveinga, fehangaaki e sio pe ongo fo...’i tama...’uli, toho pe kihe mamulumulu, fehapekaki e ...‘alu and ...‘ikai to e hala e fana ...‘a e kaveinga.

Horizontality: The case of Tu...’itatui

This is taking place now, as it did during the tyrannical rule of Tu...’itaui, 11th Tu...’i Tonga, who subordinated his people so severely that they were collectively called Ha...’a Mene...’uli (lit. People of "Soiled"-"Dirty"-Rectums). Even his royal compound was called Heketa (lit. Crawling-while-being-hit), as was his name Tu...’itatui (lit. King-hit-knees), who as a despotic ruler was able to bring people down on their knees.

To symbolise, mythologize, theologise or fantasise is merely to give oneself a sense of comfort, a peace of mind! With the psychoanalytic, therapeutic or hypnotic value aside, this very psychological source of physical and social comfort on the part of the oppressed is deployed by the oppressors as an effective tool of political control.

Towards a general ta-va, "time-space" social theory: A way out of the intellectual impasse

In the last five years, I developed a general spatio-temporal theory of nature, mind and society based on the philosophically-driven yet empirically-led Pacific / Tongan concepts and practices ta and va (or ka and wa), glossed as "time" and "space". Many of the temporal-spatial, formal-substantial problems I experienced in my research and teaching in the fields of Pacific political economy and Pacific arts, led me to this new line of theoretical development.

As a general theory (or "model" for that matter!), its main tenets are built on both the ontological and epistemological dimensions of ta and va, ...‘time" and "space". Ontologically, ta and va are the common medium in which all things are, in a single level of reality, spatio-temporality or four-sided dimensionality. On the other hand, epistemologically speaking, ta and va are social constructs, involving their relative arrangement across cultures.

The other necessary tenets are grounded on the philosophical fact that all things in reality, be they nature, mind or society, stand in relations of exchange to one another. On this fact of history, we experience that the exchange relations between things, as in the case of social groups, ecology and society and group and individual, can be ether symmetrical or asymmetrical in effect.

In social terms, the imbalance in intra- and inter-group relations of exchange by way of conflicts is expected to be transformed to a condition of balance. When the opposing "forces driving change", if I were to use Mr Uata...’s words, are mediated in the name of social symmetry, we therefore have peace, but if mediation fails, we are bound to end up with tensions. Social symmetry, peace or harmony is achieved when opposite forces in society are made equal.

The West vs. the rest

This general theory takes conflict to be its primary focus, especially so in terms of both the ontological and epistemological transformation of the form and content of things, linking nature, mind and society. Of immediate interest are the cultural and historical tensions in the organisation of time and space between the West and the rest, i.e., Western and non-Western cultures.

As far as the West goes, time and space are organised in singular, linear, analytical and individualistic terms. Responsible for this Western way of doing things are the Western science and technology, reinforced by Western capitalism and democracy. Not that I am anti-science ...– far from it. What I refer to here is the specialism or pragmatism connected with academic disciplinary boundaries, uncritically albeit largely made out to be unconnected in formal, substantial and functional terms.

As for the rest, as in the case of Tonga, ta and va are arranged in plural, circular, holistic and collectivistic terms. As separate states of affairs, these two competing arrangements of ta and va, "time" and "space" are bound to cause conflicts, within and across nature, mind and society, the subject matter of my critical investigation. This is seen in the case of tauhi va (or teu le va in Samoan), which is, as a form of ta-va, the "beating" or maintaining of social relations between groups. In Tongan aesthetics, we witness the centrality of ta and va in the field, as in the case of faiva (performance art), ta...’anga (poetry), tame...’alea (musical-instrument-playing) and tatatau (tattooing), amongst many others.

Ta-va social theory and Queen Salote

Mind you, this new theory is so applicable to the political case of Tonga, metaphorically like "hitting the nail on its head", so to speak. Queen Salote, as an excellent leader naturally, mentally and socially endowed with great leadership qualities, somehow understood some of the basic tenets of the theory.

This is reflected in her fundamental ideology of leadership, linking the leaders and the led in the society at large, thus: Ko e tu...’i mo hono kakai mo e kakai mo honau tu...’i (King and his people and people and their king) and Ko e pule...’anga mo hono kakai pea mo e kakai mo honau pule...’anga (Government and her people and people and their government). In the case of Queen Salote, the situation was one of tauhiva and fatongia (social obligations), where group exchange relations were maintained by their reciprocal social obligations. This is a recipe for peace.

The situation now is radically different, where the leadership ideology of Queen Salote is inverted to the point of it being subverted, thus: Ko e kakai mo honau tu...’i mo e tu...’i pe kiate ia (People and their king and the king unto himself) and Kakai mo honau pule...’anga mo e pule...’anga pe kiate ia (People and their government and government unto itself). The tauhiva-fatongia reciprocal relations of exchange have been radicalised, transforming them into a one-way traffic, characterised by tu...’utu...’uni (dictation) and kavenga (imposed duty), both of which are dictatorial, exploitative and oppressive in practice. This is a recipe for disaster.

Ta-vasocial theory and Dr Sitiveni Halapua...’s talanoa model

On the basis of this theory, Helu and I are currently critiquing the so-called talanoa model of Dr Sitiveni Halapua, who has been successfully utilising it as an effective cultural instrument of peace negotiation. Besides its success elsewhere in the Pacific, Dr Halapua, for the first time, used it to effectively diffuse the recent civil service strike dispute in Tonga. In our opinion, the talanoa model is one of a few models that needs adoption, precisely for both its formal and functional value.

The key strengths of talanoa as a cultural model for peace negotiation is its very own formal or philosophical character. As a pan-Polynesian concept and practice, inclusive of Tonga, talanoa involves the constant "beating" (tala; time; form) of the competing views of people in the form of stories ( va; space; content) until such time when they reach a state of harmony, equilibrium or balance (noa). Once this is achieved, we all experience great exuberance, excitement and joy. In this respect, talanoa can be considered a work of art, the principal concerns of which are the production of symmetry, harmony and beauty.

No wonder Dr Halapua, upon his return from Tonga, jokingly but sincerely called himself a tufunga fanongo, the art of listening to the talanoa or stories of the rival parties, with the expressed purpose of transforming conflicts into harmony. Not only is it a state mind and of sociality but it is also a work of great beauty!

Ta-va social theory and Tonga as a country in crisis

All things the world over, and Tonga is no exception, are in a state of flux. Tonga is in a state of serious crisis. The organisation of her resources, both human and material, is in a state of serious crisis. The distribution (which is itself a political act) of Tonga...’s wealth is in a state of serious crisis. In all, leadership is in a state of serious crisis. The most sensible, rational thing for Tonga to do now (or never), is to transform these states of crises into a state of stasis.

Tonga has got more than enough resources to enable her to participate in the global market with her head held high, but because of her leadership problems, reinforced by her dubious education system, she has not been able to produce the sophisticated level of intellect and innovation for raising the necessary capital, knowledge and skills and technology required for her own development on the whole.

Tonga needs to be both thinkers and doers, and not just doers. So far, Tonga...’s system of education (as is the Pacific as a whole) has been all along consumer-led rather than producer-led. In fact, it should be both, with the latter seen as taking the lead. This has generated all forms of dependency, be they intellectual, economic or political. With this persistent dependency mentality, Tonga is heading in the direction of hell, of which a good cross-section of her people having had a bitter taste of it already.

Slowly but surely: Ta-va social theory is here to stay

Many of my recent publications, mainly in the fields of language, political economy, trans-cultural psychology and trans-cultural aesthetics, have been the application of this newly-developed theory. A group of Tongan PhD scholars, in Japan, the Netherlands and U.S.A., as well as some of my Tongan and non-Tongan Honours, MA and PhD scholars at our University, and I have been closely collaborating in expanding this general ta-va, "time-space" theory to as many a fields as possible.

Given that the West has been pretty much done in (a...’u ki he makulekule), where old ideas are continuously recycled in seemingly new though highly problematic ways -- it is about time that we reflectively look at and into our own Pacific cultures -- as we have done with respect to our very own Tongan culture -- with an innocence of eyes and ears and, more importantly, of mind -- forcefully but critically arising from within them or it with a sense of both creativity and originality .

...‘Ofa atu fau,

Dr ...‘Okusitino Mahina
Lecturer in Pacific political economy & Pacific arts
Anthropology
University of Auckland
NEW ZEALAND