Great-men, leaders, big-men : the link of ritual power - article ; n°2 ; vol.97, pg 145-158

Andrew Strathern

Description

Journal de la Société des océanistes - Année 1993 - Volume 97 - Numéro 2 - Pages 145-158
14 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: JOURNAL_DE_LA_SOCIETE_DES_OCEANISTES
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1993
• Nombre de lectures: 120
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Andrew Strathern
Great-men, leaders, big-men : the link of ritual power
In: Journal de la Société des océanistes. 97, 1993-2. pp. 145-158.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Strathern Andrew. Great-men, leaders, big-men : the link of ritual power. In: Journal de la Société des océanistes. 97, 1993-2.
pp. 145-158.
doi : 10.3406/jso.1993.2929
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/jso_0300-953X_1993_num_97_2_2929leaders, big-men : Great-men,
the link of ritual power
by
Andrew STRATHERN *
Introduction nier's argument concerning historical change
is based on the great-man as a warrior ;
whereas the present discussion will focus more This paper re-discusses issues arising out of
on aspects of ritual power, such as the two recent works (Godelier and M. Strathern
shaman possesses. The points I wish to make eds. 1991 and P. Lemonnier 1990). The first
in this context arise out of recent fieldwork of these works is devoted to the delineation
among Duna-speaking people living near to of « big-men » and « great-men » as alternat
the Strickland River gorge in the Southern ive political types in Melanesian societies. The
Highlands Province of Papua New Guinea1. second takes up this contrast and uses it to
Since « the Duna » have figured quite promiorder a considerable number of empirical cases
nently in the comparative schemes of both along a continuum from great-men to big-men
Godelier and Lemonnier, it seems both relesystems, with a large category of « leaders »
vant and opportune to use Duna materials as falling in between the two extreme types. The
a means of re-orienting the debate in general, ordering is not only typological, but is under
as well as to modify existing ethnographic pinned by the notion of a historical and syste
accounts of these people. My argument is that mic transition from great-men to big-men
for the section of the Duna people with whom societies via the intermediate category of the
I have worked, at any rate, it is precisely the leader who organizes compensation payments
ritual dimension of power on which we must following war. The purpose of my paper is to
focus in order to understand how to place indicate that there are other characteristics by
their system of leadership in terms of general means of which power is defined in societies
typologies such as Godelier and Lemonnier with great-men and leaders which may also
have given us. have formed a basis for local variation and
change. Thus, great-men have been defined as
either prominent warriors or as « masters of I begin with a brief review of matters which
initiation rituals », or as shamans, for example arise out of Godelier and Strathern's edited
among the Baruya who have become, follo volume, and then pass to a more detailed
consideration of Lemonnier' s work and the wing Godelier's invention of this term, the
exemplar of this particular category. Lemon- Duna case itself.
*. Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.
1. Fieldwork among the Duna in 1991 was carried out under the terms of grants from the National Science
Foundation, the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, and the Wenner-Gren Foundation, all of whom I thank for
their support. Field permission was kindly granted by the Government of Papua New Guinea through the National
Research Institute and by the Southern Highlands Provincial Government. The present paper is a revised version
of one which was delivered in July 1991 at the Research School of Pacific studies, A.N.U., Canberra, and subsequently
at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris on May 12, 1992. I wish to thank M. Godelier for
inviting me as a Visiting Professor during the month of May, 1992. I thank also Gabriele Stiirzenhofecker for help
with field materials on the Duna and for discussion on the topic. My thanks also to M. Godelier and P. Lemonnier
themselves for their comments, and also to Daniel de Coppet and André Iteanu for their observations on the topics
at issue. 146 SOCIÉTÉ DES OCÉANISTES
other. Lemonnier' s large category of « leaBig-men and great-men
ders » suggests as much.
The contrast between these two categories The idea, however, that we are dealing with
may be presented in terms of leadership alone an actual set of historical transitions, cast in
or in terms of structural types of society. an evolutionary mode, can itself be contested,
Godelier clearly intends the contrast to be in at the very least by the insertion of possible
general of the latter kind, since he sees certain phases of devolution as well as evolution ; or
criteria as conducive towards, or even dia more radically by the objection that the diver
gnostic of, the great-man type, viz. sister- sity of cases and evidence does not permit us
exchange marriage and a lack of emphasis on at this stage to set up any unilineal models.
the control of wealth as a requirement for This radical form of objection would reinstate
political power. Empirical cases, however, as local variation as the central feature, and hold
often happens, escape the strict requirements evolutionary speculation in abeyance. One way
of total systems modelling. Characters who at to continue the speculative process, in the face
least resemble great-men/big-men may be of such an objection, is by means of ethno-
found together in the same social context history, in which we look to see if there is
(Tuzin 1991). Sister-exchange marriage cer evidence concerning changes in leadership over
time which might fit in with a great-man/big- tainly limits polygyny, but there are other
avenues by means of which men can mobilize man transition. Here again, though, it is
wealth or labor power. Sister-exchange by possible that the empirical data may open up
itself does not require a particular kind of perspectives more complicated than those
warriorhood or shamanism as the basis for envisaged in the original dichotomy (cf.
power. Nevertheless, overall there does seem Wiessner n.d.).
to be at least a fit between the absence or lack This point raises again the question of
of prominence of big-men and elements of criteria. Are we to see great-manship as ascri
sister-exchange marriage2. bed, for example, and big-manship as an
achieved status ? The only possible answer is Intrinsic to the contrast is the connection/
disconnection between leadership and the that these categories themselves are too broad.
control of wealth, and thus the control over There can be ascription within achievement
persons and resources. Lemonnier has shown and achievement within ascription. Or to take
that here also the situation is not simple. He up another matter, are we to look on the
has demonstrated that certain cultural princi transition as one from ritual to secular forms
ples which reach a highly-developed expression of leadership ? Liep has discussed this issue
in the « social logic » of big-men cases are in his contribution to the Godelier/Strathern
volume. He argues that the important distincalso to be found tucked away in great-men
tion is between societies reproduced through societies (Lemonnier 1990). The two principles
involved are the « substitution of wealth for ritual and those reproduced by the circulation
the person » and « increment » or the finan of wealth (Liep 1991 : 32). He recognizes that
cing of exchanges as a means of augmenting wealth is also indigenously conceived of as
personal production (cf. A.J. Strathern 1969). sacred and therefore in this sense big-men
In other words, these principles, which faci societies are also subject to ritual reproduction
litate the development of the big-man type, in a wider sense. This recognition in fact
did not have to be invented de novo. It is undermines the proposed dichotomy. If we
acknowledge the sacred character of wealth, their increasing prominence, not their inven
tion, which has to be accounted for. This we can understand better its use as a substitute
point enables us to see that the dichotomy is for life, in the first place, and second its
not an absolute one ; and one can add that power as a token of prestige. Wealth, we may
the transformations which may putatively have say, mediates in the ritual reproduction of
moved a society from the great-man into the society ; whereas in other systems, of the
great-man type, the ritual is big-man category need also not be seen as
absolute. At a given time one may discern performed directly, or mimetically, via initia
traces of one type and tendencies towards the tions or in the form of other religious cults.
2. Questions of definition arise here, of course. In the Mount Hagen area men may speak of named groups as
in a relationship of intermarriage, expressing this in terms of reciprocity : amb aklwa etemen : « they exchange women. »
This may be seen as a distant echo of genealogically-based sister-exchange. Godelier's proposition applies to « close »
sister-exchange. However, the problem of boundaries arises : when is sister-exchange not sister-exchange ? THE LINK OF RITUAL POWER 147
A viewpoint of this kind serves to provide bodies of the boys under his power ; and the
shaman deals in the life and death of the a connecting thread binding toget