Re: The powerful abstraction of purposeless things - was [ox-en] Maussian ideas and Free Software
- From: Martin Hardie <auskadi tvcabo.co.mz>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:45:41 +0200
OK now I think I know why I find this gift economy distasteful.
It is not that I object to gifts, or that I think that practice should not
turn on gift (eg see my paper The Shape of Law) but it is this
characterisation of indigenous economies that I find obnoxiously European,
white and rascist.
"Their" powerful abstractions are "purposeless things" whereas "ours" (like
money) have value.
It is bound up with a type of noble savage logic.
Gifts in tribes on the
other hand were almost always 'purposeless' things: clams, ornaments and
the like. Remember, they were signs of bonding/friendship, and it is hard
to freely give and receive items that are crucial for ones survival ...
I am trying to think this through and as such here are my preliminary
thoughts:
My problem is with this misunderstanding of indigenous economies and power.
These " 'purposeless' things" where the "powerful abstractions" of power and
economy thus the things that "are crucial for ones survival"..
The "powerful abstracation" of the "ornamament" in indigenous communities
plays a similar role to that of the "powerful abstraction of money" in the
"always theological abstractions of capital's economy".
Thus neither are "gift economies".
One of the lessons of our work with Aboriginal artsist and copyright in
Australia is that the use of " 'purposeless' things" were regulated under a
complex and not static system of rights and obligations linked to the very
essence of power and life. The misuse of one of these "'purposeless' things"
had a direct effect on whether for example and put at its simplest, there
where kangaroos or plants to hunt and eat. These things were crucial to
survival becuse if they were used in a way inconsistent with the community
project you were in fact plying with "forces that could lead to
catastrophe..." and the very maintencance of the system that allowed you
access to others lands and resources. You cannot just eat turtles if you are
a turtle man you need access to kangaroo man's resources as well. These
resources are not given in the way the "gift economy" people seem to think ,
but are regulated ie what you "give" is not "purposless" but the "powerful
abstraction" of these resources.
I think this evidence form the Bulun Bulun case MIGHT help explain what I mean
a little.
"Ral'kal translates to mean the principal totemic or clan well for my
lineage. Ral'kal is the well spring, life force and spiritual and totemic
repository for my lineage of the Ganalbingu people. It is the place from
where my lineage of the Ganalbingu people are created and emerge. It is the
equivalent of my `warro' or soul.
Djilibinyamurr is the place where not only my human ancestors were created
but according to our custom and law emerged, it is also the place from which
our creator ancestor emerged. Barnda, or Gumang (long neck tortoise) first
emerged from inside the earth at Djilibinyamurr and came out to walk across
the earth from there. It was Barnda that caused the natural features at
Djilibinyamurr to be shaped into the form that they are now.
Barnda not only created the place we call Djilibinuyamurr but it populated
the country as well. Barnda gave the place its name, created the people who
follow him and named those people. Barnda gave us our language and law.
Barnda gave to my ancestors the country and the ceremony and paintings
associated with the country. My ancestors had a responsibility given to them
by Barnda to perform the ceremony and to do the paintings which were granted
to them. This is a part of the continuing responsibility of the traditional
Aboriginal owners handed down from generation to generation. Djilibinyamurr
is then our life source and the source of our continuing totemic or sacred
responsibility. The continuity of our traditions and ways including our
traditional Aboriginal ownership depends upon us respecting and honouring the
things entrusted to us by Barnda.
Djilibinyamurr is my ral'kal, it is the hole or well from which I derive my
life and power. It is the place from which my people and my creator emerged.
Damage to Djilibinyamurr will cause injury and death to the people who are
its owners. Damage to a ral'kal is the worst thing that could happen to a
Yolngu person. It is the ultimate act of destruction under our law and custom
- it upsets the whole religious, political and legal balance underpinning
Yolngu society. It destroys the relationship and the maintenance of the trust
established between the creator ancestor and their human descendants and also
between traditional Aboriginal owners. This relationship controls all aspects
of society and life, for example ownership of country, relations with other
clans, marriage and ceremonial life and its attributes. If the life source is
damaged or interfered with in any way the power and stability derived from it
and the power and stability which has continued from the time of creation is
diminished and may collapse.
In the same way my creator ancestor formed the natural landscape and granted
it to my human ancestors who in turn handed it to me. My creator ancestor
passed on to me the elements for the artworks I produce for sale and
ceremony. Barnda not only creates the people and landscape, but our designs
and artworks originate from the creative acts of Barnda. They honour and
deliberate the deeds of Barnda. This way the spirit and rule of Barnda is
kept alive in the land. The land and the legacy of Barnda go hand in hand.
Land is given to Yolngu people along with responsibility for all of the
Madayin (corpus of ritual knowledge) associated with the land. In fact for
Yolngu, the ownership of land has with it the corresponding obligations to
create and foster the artworks, designs, songs and other aspects of ritual
and ceremony that go with the land. If the rituals and ceremonies attached to
land ownership are not fulfilled, that is if responsibilities in respect of
Madayin are not maintained then traditional Aboriginal ownership rights
lapse. Paintings, for example, are a manifestation of our ancestral past.
They were first made, in my case by Barnda. Barnda handed the painting to my
human ancestors. They have been handed from generation to generation ever
since.
The creation of artworks such as `at the Waterhole' is part of my
responsibility in fulfilling the obligations I have as a traditional
Aboriginal owner of Djilibinyamurr. I am permitted by my law to create this
artwork, but it is also my duty and responsibility to create such words, as
part of my traditional Aboriginal land ownership obligation. A painting such
as this is not separate from my rights in my land. It is a part of my bundle
of rights in the land and must be produced in accordance with Ganalbingu
custom and law. Interference with the painting or another aspect of the
Madayin associated with Djilibinyamurr is tantamount to interference with the
land itself as it is an essential part of the legacy of the land, it is like
causing harm to the spirit found in the land, and causes us sorrow and
hardship. The land is the life force of our people. It sustains and nurtures
us, as it has done for countless generations. We are very troubled by harm
caused to the carrying out of the rituals which are such essential part of
the management of our land, like the making of paintings or performances of
ceremony. It is very important that ceremonies are carried out precisely as
directed by Barnda, and that the ceremonies are respected.
`At the Waterhole' is the number one item of Madayin for Djilibinyamurr - it
is the number one Madayin for Ganalbingu - Gurrumba Gurrumba people. It has
all the inside meaning of our ceremony, law and custom encoded in it. `At the
Waterhole' has inside meaning encoded in it. Only an initiate knows that
meaning and how to produce the artwork. It is produced in an outside form
with encoded meaning inside. It must be produced according to specific laws
of the Ganalbingu people, our ritual, ceremony and our law. These things are
not separate from the manner in which this painting is produced. To produce
`at the Waterhole' without strict observance of the law governing its
production diminishes its importance and interferes adversely with the
relationship and trust established between myself, my ancestors and Barnda.
Production without observance of our law is a breach of that relationship and
trust. The continuance of that relationship depends upon the continuance and
observance of our customs and law, it keeps the people and land healthy and
strong. This work has within it much that is sacred and important to our
people about heritage and right to claim Djilibinyamurr as our land. It is
like the title of our people to his land.
Unauthorised reproduction of `at the Waterhole' threatens the whole system
and ways that underpin the stability and continuance of Yolngu society. It
interferes with the relationship between people, their creator ancestors and
the land given to the people by their creator ancestor. It interferes with
our custom and ritual, and threaten our rights as traditional Aboriginal
owners of the land and impedes in the carrying out of the obligations that go
with this ownership and which require us to tell and remember the story of
Barnda, as it has been passed down and respected over countless generations."
Among those whose evidence supported Bulun Bulun was anthropologist, Howard
Morphy, then of University College London. He gave evidence to the fact that
in "eastern and central Arnhem Land inherited designs are part of the
'sacred' law or madayin of a clan ... the designs are integral to the
ownership of the land.... Designs are not thought of as individual property
but the corporate property of social groups. All of those who own a
particular area of land have rights of ownership over the designs associated
with the land.... People producing paintings are conscious that they are
exercising rights on behalf of other members of the clan, and will only
produce them if they have the authority to do so. Under customary law the
owners of the land are able and entitled to control all uses of paintings of
clan land, including the right to reproduce such paintings. ..."
Joe Reeser provided evidence expanding upon his earlier material prepared for
the T Shirts case. "It is both easy and difficult to cast the issue of
Aboriginal bark paintings into a conventional legal determination of
originality and ownership. The work of a major and acclaimed artist has been
copied and sold without permission. From an Aboriginal point of view,
however, the matter is far more serious, and involves the profanation of a
sacred process and subject matter, the copying of individual clan designs by
those with no legitimate authority to do so ...a careless disrespectful
'playing' with forces that could lead to catastrophe.... the reproduction ...
of the painting has caused serious repercussions in the local Aboriginal
community, and the managers of the site have communicated to Bulun Bulun
their anger over the reproduction of the painting and are holding him
accountable for whatever calamities may occur because of the profanation of
the place and, importantly the production process itself. Such events, it is
widely believed, can bring widespread devastation and cosmic damage".
Now if you got this far I have a draft paper in the works that I do not want
to post because it is destined for someplace else But i don't mind sharing it
off list and talking about it off list for now. The time for on list willbe
later. It deals with my concerns about "freedom" its "transcedental theroy of
the foundation" . Contact me off list if you wnat to talk about this. Its
just if you got this far in this post you deseve something in return!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://openflows.org/~auskadi/
"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false,
which would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which
is a virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something
that certainly exists or happened." Bishop Otto to Baudolino in Umberto Eco's
Baudolino.
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/