Graduate Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies
5:1 (2007), 15-34
Appropriating and Contesting ‘Spatial’ Specification
and Diaspora- the photographic works of Edith
Amituanai
Sitelimani F. LOLOHEA University of Auckland, New Zealand THERE IS a chronic idea within many of the discussions concerning contemporary cultures which axiomatically implies that memories fasten the past and the present together, professing to confer and allocate shape and texture to Diasporic peoples and individual’s subjectivity and cultural identities which are fragmented by immigration, displacement and contemporary living. This essay discusses issues and notions visually imagined within the photographs of Edith Amituanai seen to be responsive and connected to the narrative of Diaspora. It is a discussion that attempts to make sense of the fluidity derived from the differences inherent between discourses such as Diaspora, Pacific Island‐born migrant artists and New Zealand‐
born Pacific Island artists’ visions, perceptions and ways of representing issues in connection to their past in direct relation to their contemporary cultures. Amituanai’s images infers that while there are certainly differences and rifts between these entities, especially between Island‐born and New Zealand‐born artists, the process of negotiating the past within the present context remains ambivalent. While there may be changes to visual responses to cultural subjects and motifs, culture in its mutable forms is still a very prevalent and pervasive entity. Likewise, it is expressed and manifested differently. Diaspora then, is utilized as a discourse or framework to merge and clarify these connections, and also, in the situations within her works where Diaspora is demoted. My discussion appropriates the idea of representation as generally perceived to have vitalized (and continue to) some of the movements presently enjoyed by cultural and artistic criticisms within and across contemporary experiences and scholarships proposed by Stuart Hall. There was no essential social reality that was then represented: reality could not take an essential precedence over representation, for representation was itself a necessary means of securing reality. To the extent that representations are real in their effects, they produce what passes for real in any particular conditions. Social reality and representation are mutually constitutive… 1
My discussion deploys a standpoint which inherits the ethical side or way of seeing so as to diverge from the implication of pure representation and the allegorical pathway to the inquired objects or images. This is to pose the question that if the process of cultural re‐formulation, negotiation, and maintenance is an assertion of ethics over idealism, 2 then contemporary Pacific Island cultures in Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
15
decolonizing its mindset must at some point inherit the ethical perspective that would enable them to counter the idealist view inherent within narratives historically looking to map, contain and ensnare its objects of inquiry. Amituanai’s images are seen in this sense as reflecting a dual process of allegorical movement and ethical reflection 3 as progression towards the mannerism of her contemporary Samoan Diasporic experience. Representation is seen here as an influential optic and organizing frame in the ways in which these photographs are articulated, rather than considering the context of photography as an artistic medium. John Tagg comments on emphasizing the role of images contained within in the process of cultural and identity maintenance and formation. What alone unites the diversity of sites in which photography operates is the social formation itself: the specific historical spaces for representation and practice which it constitutes. Photography as such has no identity…It is a flickering across a field of institutional spaces. 4
By putting the emphasis on the cultural and socially organized and utilitarian implication of a work of art, what is being photographed here in context is Amituanai’s social and cultural experience as a New Zealand‐born person to Samoan migrant parents; not usually imagined here in terms of what they aesthetically offer. The importance of how the artist has gone about constructing the images in terms of light, color, line and space, emphasizes the ways that the images conjure symbolic reference toward the social experiences of the artist. As widely claimed, modern uses of Diaspora as a category of literary activity closely conforms to the history and modern production of transnational cultures. A term which has once described Jewish, Greek, and Armenian dispersion, its relation to the peoples of the Pacific in overseas metropolitan countries is in many ways ambivalent. Diaspora now shares meaning with a larger semantic domain that includes words like immigrant, expatriate, refugee, guest‐worker, exile community, overseas community, ethnic community. Diaspora usually presupposes longer distances and a separation more like exile: a constitutive taboo on return, or its postponement to a remote future. Diaspora also connects multiple communities of a dispersed population. Diasporic forms of longing, memory, and (dis)identification are shared by a broad spectrum of minority and migrant populations. 5 In this case, the importance of Diaspora as a discourse in relation to Pacific Island contemporary cultures invokes a process of constant selection and negotiation which might be seen as taking place (and characterized) through and within a dialogical process usually between external factors and what is already consciously and ethically inherent within the body’s experience and history as ‘culture’. 6 It is a process seen here as corresponding to the idea proposed by Stuart Hall that what is cultural and ethnic in the discourse of identity and ethnicity as continuously disputed within Diasporic art and literature must and will always take place within the realm of representation. Diaspora then, as a framework exists systematically 16
www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps
within this realm as one of the many organizing symbols within and without which Pacific Island (in this case Samoan) cultures oscillate in the act of negotiating, disputing, and selecting the significations and projections of its people’s own self‐
images. As a discourse and as loosely defined by Clifford, 7 the works discussed herein reflects a process in which Diaspora is at times appropriate and applicable while at other times inappropriate and systematically not always relevant to the conditions of contemporary Pacific Islanders; particularly as implied through Amituanai’s works. It is within and against these contextual definitions that Pacific Island migrant cultures are mainly defined and conceptualized. This loosely set body of definitions is continuously re‐appropriated as to better serve the experience. This is demonstrated by figures such as Helen Morton and her ethnographic works on Tongan migrant communities in Australia. Morton has also employed and approached the idea through this same conceptualization to generalize the nature of her subjects of inquiry. In this view, Tongan migrants in Melbourne generally have, as Clifford says: …a history of dispersal, myths or/and memories of the homeland, alienation in the host (bad host?) country, desire for eventual return, ongoing support of the homeland, and a collective identity importantly defined by this relationship. 8
Additionally, other issues such as continuity and discontinuity, movement of the generations, relationships to the past, re‐imagining or re‐imaging a place, and a sense of not yet or can‐never‐be established within a certain context, are also evoked when attempting to define contemporary Pacific cultures in regards to Diaspora. It is important to understand here that the notion of exile as it is historically allegorized within the Diasporic narrative implies very little connections (if nothing) to Pacific Island (Samoan especially) experiences. In the sense that, in accordance to Pacific scholars such as Vercoe, our situation as Pacific Island migrants, migration for us, ʺis fuelled by economic and socially upward motivations, which contrasts markedly from forced exile experienced by people dispossessed due to political and social upheavals or environmental catastrophesʺ. 9 As a first‐generation New Zealand‐born Samoan, the inherent notion or identity marker of ‘Pacific Island migrant’ in a New Zealand socio‐cultural context is generally utilized as a conduit in and through the process of referencing to its Pacific Island communities, and is here being destabilized and unsettled initially by the very fact and idea of being born here. More so, Amituanai as a person who has spent most if not all her life away from the physicality of the notion homeland and has never felt the urge to identify with the concreteness of such notions, 10 the problematic aspect(s) inherent within discourses such as Diaspora and its meanings in regards to its objects of inquiry becomes even more visible. That is to question the utilitarian and functional role of Diaspora in terms of identifying and interpreting migrant and contemporary cultures within such a discourse. How then, do we contextualize her works? And, how do we contextualize the works of New Zealand‐
born artists such as hers and others like Andy Leleisiʹuao? 11 Clearly, their works and situation may not entirely conform to the popular concept of migrant. Unlike other Pacific Island‐migrant artists, like Fatu Feu’u and Filipe Tohi who would appear Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
17
instantaneously within such a framework to hold dearly to the notion of homeland and maintain their connections to it through artistic and aesthetic evocations within and across their works, where Leleisi’uao more often privileges the contemporary. In the Pacific, the ideas of contemporary and traditional practice differ quite prominently across different people within the same culture. But it is here that experience as an important aspect to defining contemporary cultures is often reshuffled and somehow secluded from Diaspora. It is confined only to a certain type of experience; namely the migrant, where the dichotomy of contemporary and tradition are defined almost exclusively within and in accordance to the migrant. Therefore, the idea of homeland in relation or as a manifestation of tradition is prominently privileged since most if not all of the defining entities are constructed as evocation of and references to the past in a geographical sense. Like Leleisu’ao, Amituanai’s works aesthetically and subjectively belongs to the realm of the present as there seem to be an omission with regards to references to the concrete idea of homeland as Diaspora prerogatively consider and privilege. It is with this conception that Diaspora as a narrative and representational tool ignores the fluidity and instability of its objects of enquiry. The pieces that will be spoken about in relation to these issues mainly emerged from Amituanai’s recent works. However, some of her earlier works will also feature and are utilized here not in terms of the period in which they were created. Her 2005 series entitled, ʹMrs Amituanai’, was originally intended to be a collection of photographs devoted mainly to weddings. However, the artist has stated that it gradually changed over the course of the project. A number of other issues were explored through this course and the question (amongst others) of and concerning different generation of Samoan women materialized as a result in relation to the artist’s personal situation as the first ‘Mrs. Amituanai’ in her husbandʹs household. The importance of the wedding within Amituanai’s works is quite personal, which means that her experience entails a conduit through which the cultural significance of wedding can be understood. As a person who grew up under Samoan traditional parenting, 12 in which the social image and being‐ness of a female figure is significantly perceived through Christian beliefs, transformation into adulthood is highly and culturally revered. Hence, the wedding as an important marker of this transformation is understood not only through her works but also in and through her personal relations to it. Mrs Amatuanai‐ her marriage name‐ indicates this connection and evokes her position in relation to this social and cultural transformation. Apart from the fact that her own wedding was significant in this series, her introduction to her husbandsʹ family as the first ‘Mrs Amituanai’, since her husbandʹs motherʹs death, is an entity important to the concepts of continuity, movement of the generations, and relationships to the past. As the artist stated ‘I called the exhibition ‘Mrs Amituanai’ because when I got married in August last year, I became the first Mrs Amituanai in my husband’s household since his mother passed away fourteen years ago’. 13 It is sufficient then to say that, as the series subsequently shifted from an enquiry of the socio‐cultural concept of wedding more into a concern about becoming and being an Amituanai, 14 it generated another fundamental concept and transitional stage in life – that is, death. 15 Such concepts are greatly important and intrinsic to Diaspora, especially with the heavy emphasis on the concept of past; 18
www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps
hence loss as a significantly evoked notion in relation to her marriage. Furthermore, the concept of past as articulated here may not necessarily and exclusively mean something in a traditional sense, but also an immediate past, like the recent loss of (a) family member(s) as articulated in her ʹMrs Amituanaiʹ series. In this context, change and movement are two notions which are widely embedded both within Diaspora and Amituanai’s photographs. Change is exemplified in the aspects of loss as emphasized in the image Miss Amituanai from ‘Mrs Amituanai’ (2005). Figure 1. Miss Amituanai from ‘Mrs Amituanai’, 2005. ©Edith Amituanai The central figure here is Amituanaiʹs husbandʹs younger sister and the all‐
white outfit is an indication of the important occasion of white‐Sunday. An occasion that is highly valued throughout most of the Pacific Islands cultures, particularly Samoan and Tongan, it is a celebration or marking of the importance of children to the wider church and cultural community. The importance of such occasions also function as a moment that symbolizes transition in a person’s life, hence the heavy emphasis and attentiveness on children. The other issue (which is just as important in this discussion) that white‐Sunday obliquely highlights and signifies is the contribution of parents to the lives and growth of their children. Also, while the occasion celebrates children, this actual process refers simultaneously – sometimes even more – to the contribution and efforts on the parents’ behalf. The intention of the artist is highlighted in the relation of the person, Miss Amituanai, to the framed images on the background, 16 which according to the artist is their little family shrine. 17 More importantly, is the figure’s relation to her nurturers. This also marks or commemorates the figureʹs first white‐Sunday without her father’s presence, so the idea of loss is highlighted here, but not necessarily in relation to a loss of a homeland; rather, it is something more intimate and peculiar to the artist and the figure. The family shrine in the background is also an indication of another diasporic concept ‐memory‐ which, by itself, as in The Amituanai Lounge from ‘Mrs Amituanai’ (2005), can easily be articulated as such, but it plays a crucial role in the first image in that it helps define the situation of the photographed figure. The Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
19
absence of her father is perceived through her position against the framed image of her parents in the background and the very fact that it is a shrine dedicated to the act of commemorating something of the past. The fact that she is being photographed during an important instant of cultural and social transition with only her parentsʹ photographs acutely presents their absence. Figure 2. Amituanai Lounge from ‘Mrs Amituanai’, 2005. ©Edith Amituanai The other image, The Amituanai Lounge from ‘Mrs Amituanai’ (2005), also connotes a transitional phase that embodies the idea of loss. Here, the idea is extremely and emphatically conjured in comparison to the former; because of the absence of the figure. The idea of ‘movement’ in relation to the culture is defined here as an idea that should be affiliated more with the people as carriers of culture. Rather than defining the mannerism of contemporary cultures more territorially as prevalent within Diaspora, the authoritative and quintessential defining aspect in this case ought to be the actual person. This can be seen and is evoked through the differences that the absence of the figure in relation to the former image generates. The defining and fundamental aspect evoked by this image is ideas rather than places; memories rather than actualities. However, another way of perceiving this image is to consider the importance of the shrine. While absence is conjured by the emptiness (absence of figures) of the actual photograph, the suggestion evoked by the shrine connotes presence on behalf of the images within, further suggesting its multilayered meanings and also the ambivalence of the image. A notion intrinsic and essential to Diaspora, ‘in‐between‐ness’ can be seen as that imaginary ‘space’ between two different points. Salman Rushdie in ‘Imaginary Homelands’ talks about the effect of mass migration as creating a new kind of human being, or in this sense, a culture or identity. Rushdie suggests that in this case, people have a tendency to: …root themselves in ideas rather than in places, in memories as much as in material things; people who have been obliged to define themselves – because they are so defined by others – by their otherness; people in whose deepest 20
www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps
selves strange fusions occur, unprecedented unions between what they were and where they find themselves. 18 In light of this, ambivalence(s) is inherent within these images that subsequently induce the notion of being immersed in‐between. There is a sense of loss in reality, whilst at the same time; the parents are present not only in the forms of photographs but also in experience, ideas and memories as induced by these photographs. Likewise, the same sort of memory keeping characteristic of Island‐
born migrants concerning their homeland are also hastened to an extent by experience and memories which may be further stimulated and evoked by photographs. In both senses, the ideas of in‐between‐ness, although different, are illustrated by the notions of presence and absence. The parents’ presence in the forms of photographs and the very presence of these photographs elicit their absence. Yet, the homeland being presented through photographs (and other things) evokes their absence from such a context. So their ambivalent nature indeed evokes this in‐between‐ness. That is the evocation of two very opposing and flanking dynamics in their oppositional nature suggests and additional dynamic or ‘space’ between them. There are a number of issues that this idea in relation to Amituanai’s conditions as a New Zealand‐born Samoan and her works evoke, especially since her situation and standpoint (along with other New Zealand‐born artists) differs (as informed by her works) from Island‐born migrants. As artist Andy Leleisiʹuao has stated, “…the uniqueness we share together is that we were not born in Samoa. It is this dislocation and displacement that separates us from both Island‐born artists and New Zealand‐
born papalagi artists. We differ in context and content.” 19
For Amituanai, the two different points of ‘where you’re from’ and ‘where you’re at’ or where you find yourself in reference to Rushdie informs her space of in‐
between‐ness, and therefore differs from an Island‐born artist’s cultural space of in‐
between‐ness as presented within a diasporic framework. This is because of the absence of the concreteness of the idea of a homeland or the virtual point of belonging that such framework utilizes to merge the conscious, literature, and situation of its objects of inquiry. In conversation with the artist, she has stated that visiting her parent’s homeland of Samoa did not in many ways evoke any sense or idea of the place as being a home or place of belonging to her. 20 Thus, what this suggests is that the notions of myths/memories of the homeland, desire for eventual return and the ongoing support of the homeland as defined by theorists as intrinsic to Diaspora are subsequently unsettled and destabilized by this very nature of Amituanai’s situation and standpoint as distinctively a New Zealand‐born Samoan. Contemporary Samoan‐born artist Fatu Feu’u suggests how he as a migrant Samoan conceptualizes his works’ in relation to the idea of belonging to a place informed through a Diasporic narrative. This work is of my aspirations for Samoan culture to be conserved for tomorrow. It is a metaphor of Pacific warriors looking for land to people the Pacific, in sailing canoes, taking their culture as they travelled; ceramics, lashing, carving, tapa (bark cloth) and painting all bound together and not being lost on the crossings. 21 Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
21
Amituanai’s allegorical projections of this notion as embedded within Miss Amituanai from ‘Mrs Amituanai’ and The Amituanai Lounge from ‘Mrs Amituanai’ are imagined through actual family members. In relation to Feu’u, they suggest that the experience of ‘homeland’ is not through ideas and images which are aesthetically reflective of a culture situated in an actual place, 22 but through family members. However, this is not to suggest its seclusion within Amituanai’s work, rather, it is equally suggestive of the notion of homeland but only through different modalities. Moreover, it is not implicative of a culture or experience attached to migration or travel; hence the emphasis on an actual place as one’s origin and place of physical and cultural belonging, but more so of an experience specifically attached to family as one’s sense of origin. These differences are implicated in Fatu’s piece Conserve for Tomorrow (1990/2000), in which the idea of origin is much more connected through traditional Polynesian motifs, which in this sense indicates a possession of knowledge that is profoundly connected to an actual physical landscape and place of origin. The very gesture of referring to a place elsewhere through visual motifs subsequently implies a sense of displacement. 23 Here, the emblematic route to displacement may be seen as associated more with the actual person and the culture, which highlights the privileging of a geographical and cultural homeland; as if the survival of a culture depends only on its place of origin and the maintenance of its existence is therefore imperative above all other processes of cultural maintenance. Amituanai’s photographs destabilize the concreteness inherent in the concept of homeland or place of origin, especially as claimed through geographical and cultural actualities. The photographs featuring in the family shrine suggests more of an absence from the individual or a rupturing of the physicality of homeland from the individual. I am suggesting that the ideas of homeland in connection with a place of origin are here seen and projected by the artist as the parents and the family. Figure 3. Fipe & Trisha from ‘Mr & Mrs Amituanai’, 2005. ©Edith Amituanai 22
www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps
This concept is further presented in the photograph Fipe & Trisha from ‘Mr & Mrs Amituanai’ (2005) in which the notion of loss in connection to displacement refers not to the self or the body, but more so to the notion of a place of origin. Here, this concept exists in and as a series of photographs contained in what seems to be an album. Amituanai’s piece suggests the absence of that actual place of origin. Moreover, it is the ideas and the memories that are given the mobility and the absence rather than the body or self. However, this is not to suggest that the inherent idea of homeland and roots are absent from Amituanai’s works, or to say that it lacks the kind of ideas of fa’aSamoa 24 suggested in relation to Feu’u’s piece. Rather, it is an indication that homeland is perceived and experienced differently, and indeed, it constitutes the fluidity that is inherently virtue about the notion of homeland or place of origin and belonging within and across the fragmentary of migrant and contemporary cultures’ experiences. That is to say that regardless of the absence of any traditional and concrete sense of a homeland, the relationship with the past is an equally imperative notion. That there is always a tendency to recreate the past in the present, even if that past is not necessarily a homeland. In Fipe & Trisha from ‘Mr & Mrs Amituanai’ (2005), the notion of memory 25 is seen and absorbed here as temporally mobile. Memories in the form of photographs are not confined and stagnated into one particular context, but are comprised into a mobile and portable album. The sense and task of refreshing one’s memory of the past in visual forms are made to be available not just within one’s living room 26 but also in other contexts. It suggests a sense of movement, while simultaneously evoking the idea of disjunction that has the risk of being lost as opposed to a photograph which is firmly attached to a particular context as exemplified in Ioka (Rob & Harry) (2004). Figure 4. Ioka (Rob & Harry) 2004. ©Edith Amituanai Here, the memory of ‘Rob’ and ‘Harry’ is secured and firmly contextualized in the family space or room. This image, along with the first two images (The Amituanai Lounge from ‘Mrs Amituanai’, and Miss Amituanai from ‘Mrs Amituanai’) induce a sense and process of repetition. In all three images, the idea that the past can exist Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
23
firmly in the present is highlighted and preserved by the images within 27 and the context in which they are placed and displayed; the living room. In this sense, and as an important family space, it is valued and appreciated. However, what distinguishes ‘Rob and Harry’ is that it not only commemorates a sense of the past, but also an instantaneous present. Therefore, it is not a loss as the subjects are still physically present‐ they have not physically passed away, just grown up‐ therefore, it is a recreation of the subject in photographic form. This sense of repetition is inducted by the idea that two of the same body exists simultaneously. Like Feu’u’s piece, two of the same bodies exist simultaneously; the homeland and ideas and memories of it. Samoa as it exists exists also in and through Feu’u’s artistic depiction. Likewise, Rob and Harry as they exist exist also in and through the photographs in the family interior, therefore evoking the idea of recreation and repetition. The simultaneous existent of two entities, especially in this case, subsequently evokes a rift between the two and therefore a sense of dislocation. Edward Said asserts in his essay entitled ‘Interiors’ that, “we (Palestinians) keep re‐creating the interior – tables are set, living rooms furnished, knick‐knacks arranged, photographs set forth – but it inadvertently highlights and preserves the rift or break fundamental to our lives.” 28 I am suggesting that the rift here is the personal or social separation or dislocation of an entity or person from a particular notion or place. 29 In Amituanai’s situation, the rift may be seen as the separation from an ancestor, family or even a particular important instant as depicted in the above images. Therefore, dislocation does not imply a separation from an actual homeland as proposed through Feu’u’s but rather, from the very presence of family. However, it could also be argued that the sense of home in relation to the concept of Island‐born migrantsʹ homeland, may be embedded within the parents; that is to say that cultural heritage and the idea of homeland is embodied through the very conscious and actuality of their parents (and family) – hence, the idea of cultural carriers. This concept of home in relation to cultural heritage is manifested in their guidance and cultural didactics. Here, traditional values as connected to parents and families supplant the physicality of an actual homeland. Moreover, it becomes that which New Zealand‐born Pacific Islanders are seemingly displaced from. Figure 5. Ioka 2004. ©Edith Amituanai 24
Figure 6. Ioka (Ioka’s Fa’ali’i) 2004. ©Edith Amituanai www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps
The photographs Ioka (2004) and Ioka (‘Ioka’s Fa’ali’i) (2004) help demonstrate this idea. Home as manifested through parental traditional values, is referred to in the first image, while the sense of dislocation is embodied through the second piece. The first piece is referencing the very presence of home through a performance and an apparent manifestation of it. Here, aspects of traditional Samoan role of a young female figure are depicted, just as a traditional Samoan artistic motif is depicted in Feu’u’s work. The obedience demanded (exemplified through ‘Ioka’s almost rigid and strict posture and facial expression) and inherent in traditional female 30 roles in Samoan culture and across the Pacific is here utilized as an idea supplanting and metaphorically replacing the sense of an actual distant homeland. So to say that works like Ioka lack the inherent sense of faaSamoa similar to the much more concrete conceptions embedded within a migrant person’s symbolic references would deny the importance of traditional values as an imperative yet elastic and recurring theme within and across New Zealand‐born ideas concerning its role within one’s cultural senses. Its coerciveness and influence is manifested in the Ioka (‘Ioka’s Fa’ali’i) piece. While the sense of home as embodied through traditional values is seen as prevalent in the first piece, the second emerge to indicate its displacement. It suggests that there is a resistance to its (FaaSamoa) pervasive influence while indicating a bridging of its restrictive boundaries; therefore it further insinuates its cultural displacement and dislocation. The second piece depicts ‘Ioka secluding herself in reaction to the traditional role prevalent in the former piece. Moreover, ‘Fa’ali’i’ as a Samoan term describes a person’s defiance to a particular action, although in a subtle way, or as the artist suggest, “sulk would be the closest English translation.” 31 However, what these two pieces also suggest is a sense of continuation. They suggest a re‐evaluation of culture as an entity driving New Zealand‐born figures’ process towards an identity that is harmonious and responsive to their contemporary settings as well as respective of their parent’s values. As a diasporic concept, cultural continuity 32 evokes the idea of maintenance, and despite the co‐existence of conflicting concepts like continuation and change, presence and absence or loss 33 within one confining framework; Diaspora, endurance and survival (in regards to the entities that these conflicting notions overshadow and define) still prevails in the process through forms and acts of creativity, negotiation, and adaptation. This is greatly exemplified in Ioka (The Amituanai Family Lotu), (2004). Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
25
Figure 7. Ioka (The Amituanai Family Lotu) 2004. ©Edith Amituanai What is suggestive in these images is the way that the methods of maintaining Pacific Island cultural heritage and identity insidiously change in its carriers’ process of adapting and responding to their new environment(s). The Ioka (The Amituanai Family Lotu) piece describes the occasional Samoan family prayer (Lotu), which further exemplifies its value within Amituanai and her family’s migrant context. The importance of the Samoan language is connoted and evoked by the very presence of the Samoan Holy Bible in each figureʹs hands. Amituanai states that in her experience as a New Zealand‐born Samoan, one of the most profound and accentuated way of maintaining or improving oneʹs knowledge of the language, is the regular reading of the Bible, 34 which also can be said across other Pacific Islands migrant cultures. Although it is true to say that the Bible has always been used and valued in such a way, and apart from its religious purpose, its immense importance in reviving and maintaining the language is a manifestation of its dislocation from its usual cultural use. This resonates within the fact that generally in the homeland, most communications (whether through news papers, television, and radios) are carried out through the conduit of their mother language, which also implies numerous accessible cultural sources for the maintenance of indigenous languages. This capacity is immediately denied for the reasons that the socio‐cultural spaces and avenues in New Zealand (or any other migrant contexts) in which Pacific Island languages have influence and access to are scarcely limited, therefore further rendering the importance of (new) tools that can be apportioned with the same task. This importance is manifested through the orchestrated glaring attention of the figures within the photograph on the Bible. That their posture, although in a way can be articulated as a disinterested gesture and of tedium, can also lay claim as a gesture of ruminated and anticipated obedience to what is being read or the actual text (Bible). Nevertheless, it is an obedience that may not necessarily be implanted with agreement and concordance on the listenerʹs behalf; as depicted in Ioka’s situation and response to her parentsʹ cultural values in Ioka (‘Ioka’s Fa’ali’i). 26
www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps
Figure 8. Boy Shame 2004. ©Edith Amituanai Figure 9. Girl Shame 2004. ©Edith Amituanai In this sense, change is seen as a cultural and religious item such as the Holy Bible, takes on a modified value and purpose that might otherwise be overlooked or seen with an unequal importance within the homeland. Additionally, continuity in culture is seen in the fact that the value and its maintenance are preserved through the process of Family Lotu. The strict gestures of each figure in this piece also speaks of the grandness measure of such cultural/religious aspect; a strictness which is also characteristic of Boy Shame (2004) and Girl Shame (2004). Within these two photographs, the importance of adaptation and negotiation with a possible threat embedded from differing parental cultural heritage and values. Reflecting on the artist’s own experience, the reaction of migrant parents to the misconduct of their children speaks of an obligation to cultural heritage and values and its significant maintenance. As well as highlighting the distinction of parental reactions between genders within her own experience and the conflicting nature of younger generations’ actions with their parentsʹ values, it seems that in this process Amituanai also highlights the importance of Pacific Island migrant cultures’ obligation to maintaining the existential nature of its parentsʹ cultural heritage and values, whether Samoan, Tongan, Niuean, Fijian or other. Whether each of their culture’s carriers agree or disagree with it, the artist seem to be highlighting a proposition implying that it is something that they should be obliged to, “use (their Samoan heritage) as a sense of inspiration to negotiate their identity, culture, and art.”35
Another way of looking at these two photographs is by considering what many cultural critics have often utilized in attempting to make sense of the processes of contemporary cultural formations; the ideas of a dialogical process which involves collaboration, negotiation, and contestation. As informed through Waltraud Kokot, Khachig Tōtōlyan and Carolin Alfonso, the process of identity and cultural formation “never occur outside socio‐political and cultural contexts. They are no reflection of a free play of independent actors”, rather, “they always require an opposite, the ‘other’ on to which the” progressing “image of the ‘self’ is” continuously projected. 36 While many of Amituanai’s other photographs (discussed beforehand) certainly imply the existence of an in‐between space or what Homi K.Bhabha calls interstices, 37 between two different points or in this case past and present within contemporary cultural formations, it is within these two photographs that interstices may be most palpable. Bhabha asserts that, “these ‘in‐between’ spaces provide the Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
27
terrain for elaborating strategies of self‐hood – singular or communal – that initiate new signs of identity, and innovative sites of collaboration, and contestation. 38 More so, the idea raised by Bhabha regarding post‐colonial culture’s situation as ‘living on the borderlines of the present’ 39 pays homage in many ways to the conditions of migrant and New Zealand‐born Pacific Islanders. The fact that the object of enquiry in Girl Shame is confronted with her parents’ cultural values, connotes a sense of being constantly reminded of a diasporic difference as more connected to the past than the present. Because of New Zealand‐born figures’ ongoing collaboration with cultural values and heritage whilst being permeated and encroached with modern or contemporary worldviews, it begs the question whether they would ever be fully situated and symmetrically collaborative with the present. The ambiguity of such a condition exemplifies the state of uncertainty or perplexity that is very characteristic of the Diasporic experience(s) pervasively dominant within and across Amituanai’s works. In Girl Shame, the emphatic rejection of the daughter’s espousal of values other than her Pacific Island parents’ values 40 may be seen as an act of contestation in the process of defining the idea of society, both on the artist and those depicted within the narrative of the photograph. While the parents seem to be contesting against external cultural (and political) influences; the abundance of freedom deployed and sanctioned to youths in terms of choices in the social world and the impediment of parental interference, 41 the artist seems to be contesting the unfairness and differences embedded within such issues in her Samoan cultural experiences. When considering the two photographs together, Boy Shame and Girl Shame, the difference between the reaction and the ways in which the parents deal with the same misconducts elicit reasons for the artist to not only challenge but also highlight the complexity of the very cultural aspect that is seemingly liable to her parent’s cultural displacement. Moreover, the dissymmetrical nature of the relation between parental values and their children’s more inclined actions towards external norms, inherently and naturally appeals to the idea of displacement. The conflicting nature of parental‐child relationships not only speaks of differences in contemporary values but also of spatial displacement; namely, that the very idea of parental values contesting continuously against external influences is an annunciation of a given spatial displacement. While migrant‐parents are seen here to be contesting against external influences and collaborating with their own cultural values, the photographer also points to a new aspect of this process; the New Zealand‐born. In this sense, and as suggested through her works, it is generally difficult to determine which aspects inherent in their migrant‐parents’ culture(s) and which of their present context’s culture and values are known to contribute to their processes of contestation and collaboration. More so, this poses a dual question whether New Zealand‐born Pacific Islanders are spatially displaced in a physical sense, or, whether they are merely partial diffusions of their migrant‐parents’ culture(s). While most of the attentions and interpretations of Diaspora are diverted towards migrant cultures and their places of origin and places in which they find themselves, the position of New Zealand‐born Pacific Islanders within the process of negotiation and Diasporic cultural formation, speaks of the complexity and the multifaceted nature of Diaspora’s object(s) of inquiry. 28
www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps
There is ambivalence in the artist’s standpoint as to which of the two main polarities she identifies with; parental migrant values, or that which is embedded and pervasive within and across her present context. Apart from highlighting the fact that two very different conflicting organizing entities are contesting and looming over her own experience as a New Zealand‐born Samoan, the vagueness and dilemma of where one should situate her/himself in relation to these two opposing entities is greatly emphasized through the above images. Moreover, the importance of cultural heritage as informed and symbolized through suggestions and reference to parental figures in Amituanai’s works is undoubtedly emphatic. However, the conflicting relationship informed through photographs such as Ioka (‘Ioka’s Fa’ali’i) and Girl Shame further complicates the spatial position of people identified as neither belonging to any of the two inherent opposing entities that Diasporic experiences are constructed upon. Of course, it is highly conceivable to adopt the concept of ‘in‐between‐ness’ and ‘interstices’ as provided by critics such as Bhabha and Rushdie, but equally suggestive is an educing sense of being located and confined within the protection and boundaries of parental cultural heritage and values, as well as the often overlapping experiences to which the above pieces refer: beyond those boundaries. It is a reflection of our fundamental need to keep re‐articulating our culture for the reasons that it inevitably exists and continue to be disseminated within and without changing environments. There is a superiority and assertiveness of parental values connoted within some of Amituanai’s photographs; especially within pieces such as ‘Ioka (‘Ioka’s Fa’ali’i), Ioka (The Amituanai Family Lotu), Boy Shame and Girl Shame. The fact that these pieces point to the existence of ‘in‐between‐ness’ especially in regards to the idea of New Zealand‐born Samoan(s) caught in‐between two very different cultural spaces, simultaneously alludes to the existence of a unique socio‐
cultural space that functions under the cultural didactic of parental cultural heritage and values. Moreover, a space that is also perceived as existing inside the imaginary “wall of solidarity” emphatically formed by members of the (Samoan) culture; in this case, the migrant‐parents. In his essay ‘Interiors’, Said points to the Palestinian phrase al‐dakhil, which refers to privacy, “to that region on the inside that is protected by both the wall of solidarity formed by members of the group, and the hostile enclosure created around us by the more powerful.” 42 Said is generally referring here to the Palestinians in Israel, which is very different in numerous ways to Pacific Island cultures in New Zealand, and of course our political situations differ, but the spatial structure of Palestinian groups within an alien, external and hostile power, can be reflected within the power‐relations between New Zealand‐born migrants, their cultural heritage‐ embodied through their parents and the influence of that which is considered external. More so, although the external influence (or that of the centre) here in New Zealand is beyond the hostility that Palestinians experience, if one is to imagine the spatial constructions, there exist an actual and extra socio‐cultural space within and under Pacific Island parent’s traditional values. Al‐dakhil is a socio‐
cultural space that functions inside the protected and cultural didactic wall formed by the parents in hoping objectively to protect against the opposing and conflicting influence of the outside or that which seems to be advocated by the dominant culture. The influence of these dual environments on New Zealand‐born Pacific Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
29
Islanders’ way of life and their power is inherently conceivable within these photographs, yet it does not necessarily mean that the (equally?) influential and powerful aspect of their parental values fails to make any significant impact. More so, the very fact that the authority within generational power‐relations is visually authorized, given and played assertively by the parents in these photographs not only highlights the Diasporic concept of in‐between‐ness on the younger generations’ behalf, but also assert their spatial emplacement simultaneously within the authoritative ‘wall’ that is solitarily forming in accordance to their parent’s cultural values. In this sense, the idea that contemporary culture(s) synchronously oscillate within different socio‐cultural spaces evokes impossibility at various points for discourses such as Diaspora and its abounding definitions to textualize and define its object(s) of inquiry. However, is the very term and idea of ʹin‐between‐nessʹ itself insensitive to the power‐relations working behind the construction and on‐going formation of contemporary and Diasporic cultures? Does it, in any way, fail or refuse to acknowledge the inevitability of migrant culture’s placement on the outside always, regardless of how much it may conform and its tendency to slowly be wafted towards the dominant cultural senses? Of course, the works explored here are but one instant of many and diverse experiences and the level of power possessed by parental culture(s) and that which is possessed by the dominant sense may vary differently across cultural contexts. But one should never overlook the fact that, as well as the possibility of contemporary situation being perceived as an entity ʹin‐
betweenʹ two or even more different and very opposing points, its placement(s) (as ever‐changing as they are) are determined to a great degree in accordance to its relations to the different powers and authorities looming and predominating the socio‐cultural spaces it progressively engages with. In ‘Ethics after Idealism’, 43 Rey Chow’s discussion of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Slavoj Žižek’s works and the manners in which they have appropriated and responded to the ideals of Marxism, suggests a theoretical point of departure as a way to better understand in theory the erratic and eccentric nature of the New Zealand‐born Pacific Island’s identity space, especially in relation to the duality of the primal cultural spaces it progressively oscillates to and fro. 44 By appreciating that the nature of this identity space is heterogeneous and improper in this relational dynamic; it is both inside and outside in regards to both parental and traditional cultural values and the ideals of Diaspora as a narrative and representational tool. Its identity and value emerges from its being inside and circulating and exchanging within these dual spaces; from the ethics of cultural heritage embedded within parental culture(s) and the idealized narrative, but in order to define it, it must be seen outside of its circulation and exchanging in a rupturing process. Therefore, it is both the ethics of parental cultural didactics and the ideals of Diaspora narratives (the agent of idealism). Moreover, it bridges (whilst violating at the same time) any notions of a clean and concrete conceptual boundary between the two spaces. The importance of Diaspora here is that it helps intensify the existence of its object(s) of inquiry, and although Pacific Island scholarships and arts 45 may inherit a standpoint which is resistance to the idealist views that may be inherent within such a discourse and others alike, and although there are certainly problematic factors in its relation to Pacific Island migrant and New Zealand‐born peoples, the important 30
www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps
idea is that Pacific Island Cultures in Diaspora are able to take part in the process of representation “as a form of subjugating.” 46 Especially in the sense that Amituanai’s photographs implies that what can be subjugated in this process also applies to the very narrative and ideals overarching and inherently superimposed upon migrant cultures’ progression towards fluidity and heterogeneity. More so, her photographs suggest that within the process of representation, the new space within which New Zealand‐born peoples seemingly inhabit cannot be owned by any particular ideals or ethics, and rather subjugate their own physique‐ness so as to render and deploy problems in terms of any external attempts to define concrete conceptual boundaries over and above them. Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
31
The author would like to thank the artist Edith Amituanai for making the article possible, his MA
supervisor Caroline Vercoe for the directions concerning the article content. He would also like to
thank fellow students Tony Fala (PHD candidate) and Ye Miao (Honours student) for the many and
endless discussions about American Professional Sports (and Diaspora) from which many of the ideas
in the article materialised. Dr. Sailau Sua’ali’i-Sauni (Centre for Pacific Studies) for the help with
FaaSamoa.
NOTES Kuan‐Hsing Chen, David Morley, and Stuart Hall, Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, New York, Routledge, 1996, p.214. 2 See Rey Chow’s comparison of post‐Marxist writers Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Slavoj Žižek and their questions of justice in Marx’s analysis of the commodity. My view in relation to Chow’s review of these two writers is that cultural values in terms of ethics (mostly in the forms of cultural heritage) pose the imperative question about ‘origins’. By ‘values’ I mean ‘identity’ and ‘self‐image’: Does cultural identity as ‘values’ come to us through ideals or from itself as a free and independent process? By ‘ideals’ I mean narratives and representational tools which are idealistically constructed as to project and help constitute the nature of an external entity. ‘Idealism’ therefore is the reliance on such narratives and representational tools as the main determinant factor of entities around and external to it. – Rey Chow, Ethics After Idealism: Theory, Culture, Ethnicity, Reading, Ethics After Idealism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998, pp.33‐53. 3 Basically an oscillation between representation – Diasporic narrative – and migrant cultural values – within and without Diaspora as a circulation of ideal tools for identifying and representing its objects of inquiry. 4 John Tagg, The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories, Basingstoke: MacMillan Education, quoted in Visual Culture: The Reader, edited by Jessica Evans & Stuart Hall, London, Sage in association with the Open University, 1999, p.128. 5 James Clifford, ‘Disapora’ in Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late 20th Century, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1997, p.247. 6 See Janice Peck, Cultural Critique, Itinerary of a Thought: Stuart Hall, Cultural Studies, and the Unresolved Problem of the Relation of Culture to “Not Culture”, Vol. 48, Spring, 2001, pp.201‐2. 7 Clifford, p.247. 8 Helen Morton, ‘Creating their Own Culture: Disaporic Tongans’, The Contemporary Pacific, Vol. 10, No. 1, (Spring), 1998, pp.6‐7. 9 Caroline Vercoe, ‘The Blueness of My Tapa Cloth: Notions of Exile and Belonging in the Work of Andy Leleisi’uao’, unpublished work provided by the author, 2006, p.1. 10 Conversation with the Artist; Edith Amituanai, 2006. 11 The importance of bringing Leleisi’uao into the discussion rests within the fact that most of his early works and his personal perceptions with regards to the differences that may be inherent between Island‐born and New Zealand‐born Pacific artists implies a favoring of the emotions over nostalgically guided ways of representing one’s culture. In early pieces such as ‘I am Present’ (1996), ‘It’s Funny Now Aye’ (1995), and ‘Pressured’ (1995), the contemporary experiences of Samoan culture in general are allegorized through very emotionally charged images which all implies the opposite of projecting a longing‐ness to an aspect and notion of ‘home’, rather, these images emphasizes more the hardship of the reality within which cultural carriers of Samoa exist and suffer. 12 Artist Lecture Talk; 2006. 13 Edith Amituanai in the exhibition, ‘2 × 2 Contemporary Projects: Edith Amituanai / Kelcy Taratoa’, City Gallery Wellington (NZ), 18 June – 30 July 2006, see http://www.citygallery.org.nz/mainsite/edith‐
amituanai‐at‐city‐gallery‐wellington.html and http://ramp.mediarts.net.nz/archive/edith_a/edith_a.html 14 Edith Amituanai in the exhibition ‘Edith Amituanai, Mrs Amituanai Edith Amituanai’, Ramp Gallery, Hamilton (NZ), 27 March – April 14, 2006. 15 What is also important within a Diasporic environment is the sometime overlooked importance of women in the process of cultural continuity, especially as carriers and nurturers of the culture’s future generation. This idea will be mentioned later on in the discussion (See Breda Gray, ‘Too Close for Comfort; Remembering the forgotten Diaspora of Irish Women in England’ in Diaspora, Identity, and Religion; New Directions in Theory and Research, edited by Waltraud Kokot, Khachig Tōlōlyan and Carolin Alfonso, London, New York, N. Y., Routledge, 204, p.33‐53.) 1
32
www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps
16 The inclusion of framed images here is also perceived as an act or process in which the photographer pays homage to the tradition of photography itself – suggested in a discussion on the artist’s works in http://www.city‐gallery.org.nz/mainsite/edith‐amituanai‐at‐city‐gallery‐wellington.htm 17 Artist Lecture Talk; 2006. 18 Rushdie, Salmon, ‘Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticisms 1981 – 1991’, London, Granta Books in association with Penguin Books, 1991, quoted in ‘Charlie Chan’s Secret’ by Mimi Lok in http://www.para‐site.org.hk/_pre/mimi.htm. 19 Vercoe, p.1. 20 Conversation with the Artist: Edith Amituanai, 2006. 21 Fatu Feu’u ‘Concerve for Tomorrow’ in http://www.pacificart.co.nz/fatu.htm 22 As evoked through the continuous usage of traditional Polynesian and Samoan motifs as the primary indication and allegorical pathways to Samoa as a culture and place of one’s belonging. 23 What is usually perceived as cultural displacements within contemporary narratives such as Diaspora is usually the separation of people from their native culture (and geographical placement) through physical dislocation (as refugees, immigrants, migrants, exiles, or expatriates) or a historical colonizing imposition of a foreign culture. In this case, and as mentioned earlier, Pacific Island senses of displacement is connected more with the idea of migration rather than by other means such as those mentioned. Moreover, displacement is multivalent in its natural relationship to the idea of culture; as Angelika Bammer articulates in her study of cultural displacement, “…displacement as a theoretical signifier, a textual strategy, and a lived experience.” (Displacements: Cultural Identities in Question, ed. Angelika Bammer, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1994. p.xiii.) In my discussion, the differences between the notion of homeland as expressed through Amituanai’s images in comparison with Feu’u implies firstly differences in experience. For Feu’u, his experience as a migrant renders his visions in relation to such notions as a lived experience where as Amituanai’s experience as a New Zealand‐born Samoan implies a standpoint influenced more by displacement as a theoretical signifier. 24
“fa’aSamoa is generally translated as: faa meaning ‘to be’ or ‘in the manner of’ ‐ Samoa or Samoans. Faasamoa, as a concept when articulated by most Samoans, often refers to ‘traditional notions of Samoan culture and customs or traditions originating from the homeland ‐ Samoa. Moreover, those who speak of ‘the faaSamoa’ tend to understand their engagement in the faaSamoa in terms of engaging with traditional notions of being Samoan or with traditional practices or behaviours suggested to be ‘authentically Samoan’. In this sense the faaSamoa can be expressed as both an institutional and cultural thing. Implicit in these understandings of faaSamoa is the suggestion that the faaSamoa (or at least what is suggested to be ‘real’ or authentic Samoan) derives from Samoa ‐ the place. This fixing of the faaSamoa to Samoa is being challenged today by Samoans living outside of Samoa (especially in New Zealand) whose practices of ‘traditional’ faaSamoa rivals those who practice ‘faaSamoa’ in Samoa proper. What this means is that while having origins in Samoa, the faaSamoa may in fact be more adaptable and transportable than might otherwise be expected or assumed.” (Dr. Sailau Sua’ali’i‐Sauni, in a personal conversation regarding Faasamoa as a concept and what it may mean in general within a contemporary setting such as New Zealand, Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Auckland, 2007)
25 Diasporic memories are usually seen as long‐standing symbols and resources evoked in direct relations to a migrant nation’s own past‐times and in response to its contemporary displacement. (See Virinder S. Karla, Raminder Kaur, and John Hutnyk, ‘Cultural Configurations of Diaspora’ in Diaspora and Hybridity, London, Sage, 2005, pp.25‐51.) In this sense, it is seen in my discussion as undertaking a transformation and process of re‐insertion characterized more and taking shape within a dialectical process (as mentioned above) of negotiation and contestation between inherent notions of one’s own cultural sensibilities and his/her contemporary experience. 26 As exemplified in the photograph ‘Ioka (Rob & Harry)’ (2004). 27 The framed images residing in the background of the very first two images discussed above. 28 Edward Said, After The Last Sky: Palestinian Lives/ photographs by Jean Mohr. 1st ed., New York, Pantheon Books, 1986, p.58. 29 ibid. 30 Symbolized by the performance of the catering role inherently connected to young females in the traditional Samoan household; here seen as ‘Ioka carries the cup of tea/coffee with strictness (in her facial expression) to the older members (or visitors) of the family. 31 Conversation with the Artist; Edith Amituanai, 2006 Lolohea/Diaspora and the Photographs of Edith Amituanai
33
32 The title of Amituanai’s series ‘Mrs Amituanai’ (2005) and the exploration of issues connected with different generations of Samoan women adheres and signify the importance of women as they are directly connected to the process of cultural continuity and maintenance in the sense that notions of ‘continuity’, ‘authenticity’, and child rearing and the preservation of culture are seen to be invested in the bodies of women (Breda Gray, ‘Too Close for Comfort; Remembering the forgotten Diaspora of Irish Women in England’in Diaspora, Identity, and Religion; New Directions in Theory and Research, edited by Waltraud Kokot, Khachig Tōlōlyan and Carolin Alfonso, London, New York, N. Y., Routledge, 2004) 33 As discussed beforehand. 34 Personal Lecture; Edith Amituanai, 2006. 35 Vercoe, p.1. 36 Waltraud Kokot, Khachig Tōlōlyan and Carolin Alfonso, Diaspora, Identity, and Religion; New Directions in Theory and Research, , London, New York, N. Y., Routledge, 2004, p.4. 37 Homi K. Bhabha, The Locations of Culture, London, New York, Routledge, 1993, pp.1‐2. 38 ibid. 39 ibid. 40 This is drawn from the artist’s experience as a young woman being pregnant before marriage and how the cultural values and ethics of her migrant parents clashed with this particular action: Artist personal Lecture, 2006. 41 Exemplified in the recent ongoing debates regarding New Zealand’s Green Party’s ‘anti‐smacking’ bill with the ‘Labour’ Government, but also debates mostly taking place within New Zealand talk‐back radio shows which continues to claim the ‘absurdity’ of the freedom sanctioned and handed to New Zealand youth in general (Labour Government’s Sales of Liquor Law and the lowering of the drinking age for example‐ http://labour.org.nz/labour_team/mps/mps/dianne_yates/speeches_and_releases/19MARCH2002/index.
html), as one of the main catalysts for the continuous rise of youth crimes and misconducts. 42 Edward Said, The Edward Said Reader, ed. by Moustafa Bayoumi and Andrew Rubin, New York, Vintage Books, 2000, p.53. 43 Rey Chow, Ethics after Idealism: Theory, Culture, Ethnicity, Reading, Ethics after Idealism, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1998, pp.33‐53. 44 My ideas here are projected from Chow’s discussion on Spivak’s reading of Marx after reading Jacques Derrida, especially in Spivak’s appropriation of Derrida’s notion of writing as différance and using it to construct a post‐Marxist notion of ‘Value’ not as representation and an index of labor but as difference, which is to disavow its irreducible materiality and therefore any possibility of relativizing it. Its importance here is its openness, especially in relation to Derrida’s notion of différance. Like ‘Value’ in Spivak’s term and ‘writing’ in Derrida’s term, New Zealand‐born Pacific Islanders’ cultural space(s) function in the same enigmatic manner in the sense that while it is supposed to be secondary in relation to both Pacific island parental space(s) and New Zealand’s dominant cultural space(s) since it seems to materialize as a result of both, its dialogical process with these two primary spaces automatically renders it – NZ‐born space – as a primary determinant and an agent of itself; which is to mean it is both immersed in‐between and exist within both spaces but it is in itself an entity of itself in its own right and identity– ibid. 45 In its process of identity maintenance and formulation – seen to be taking place within and through a process of empowerment and decolonization – See works such as that of ‘Epeli Hau’ofa, ‘Our Sea of Islands’, The Contemporary Pacific: A Journal of Island Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring, 1994, Centre of Pacific Studies & University of Hawaii Press, and other Pacific Island scholars who seem to adopt an anxious standpoint against the prevalence of Western idealistic narratives similar to Diaspora in the articulation of Pacific indigenous cultures ‐ In Hau’ofa’s case, representation in the forms of colonial mapping still inherent and pervasive in the geo‐economic conceptions of contemporary Oceania in general. 46 Craig Owens, Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power, and Culture, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992, p.xiv. 34
www.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps