Selección y Uso de EPIs y equipos de trabajo

The notion of guidance toward a morally and culturally correct community-based ideal may be expressed in the terms sautu and na sala vakavanua (na sala va’avanua) (the vanua way42_{) or na sala dodonu (the straight path}43_).

Nabobo-Baba (2007) describes sautu as ‘good health and wealth’ whereby good health is explained in terms of physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual well-being, and health is determined not by economic terms but through the integrity of social networks. Sautu is determined by how well an individual observes the laws of the vanua:

A person is believed to be healthy and well if he behaves accordingly and appropriately to the expectations and demands of the traditional custom. If he is unwell then he will be generally considered ill and non-

42

In terms of adherence to vanua values. 43

existent or lifeless, dead, although physically present, if he acted inappropriately and ignored tradition (Ravuvu, 1976, p. 45).

Sautu is directly related to va’aturaga as ‘ideal behavour’ (see p. 59) or living life va’avanua (the vanua way). While the term sautu was never used in informal talanoa in Boumā that I was aware of (I later discovered this is a term used in more formal contexts) my research participants made reference to ‘good Fijians’. Good Fijians were those who lived their life va’avanua or va’aturaga. Good Fijians were considered wealthy, healthy and prosperous as described by Nabobo-Baba and Ravuvu.

A deep appreciation of these concepts is vital for development practitioners and researchers. Otherwise, the goals and motivations of the people of Boumā cannot be understood. For example, these concepts imply that development should be more appropriately based on notions of communalism rather than on individualism. For the Boumā communities, deviation from na sala va’avanua or na sala dodonu in the management of the ecotourism initiatives and therefore, a deviation from a communal life, cast doubt on the appropriateness of the project to village life and justifications for its continuance.

A person may have many material goods and money but without a healthy network of relationships, they are not truly wealthy. ‘Healthy relationships means a person attends to the needs of his/her relations when they call for help’ (Nabobo-Baba, 2006, p. 74). Here the emphasis on success and development is less on economic capital but on social capital.

Social capital has been explored by many theorists (including Bourdieu, 1977, 1986; Putnam, 2000; & Fukuyama, 1999). According to Robert Putnam (2000), social networks have value. Putnam (2000) defines social capital as “features of social organization, such as networks, norms, trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for benefit” (p. 36) and believes that social capital can be measured by the amount of trust and "reciprocity" in a community or between individuals. For Putnam, social capital refers to the collective value of all “social networks” [who people know] and the

inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other [‘norms of reciprocity’]” (pp. 20 & 135). Sautu, then, is the product of living a Fijian life according to na sala va’avanua (the way of vanua/the correct path involved in building and maintaining those networks of trust and reciprocity).

Living sala va’avanua refers to living in a way that accords with Fijian village life and respects the law of God, ancestors and worldly chiefs. This is a moral ideal that all Boumā people strive for. In this way it ‘governs’ and guides Boumā people in their daily decision-making. All decisions made should first and foremost concern the maintenance of social harmony in the community. Richard Katz, in his (1999) book The Straight Path: Ancestral Wisdom and Healing Traditions in Fiji states, ‘the concept of being "straight" has particular relevance to patterns of decision making and conflict resolution. One who is straight is correct, right, and truthful; such a person learns how to "straighten things out" and to "make things right" - that is, to resolve conflict according to certain moral principles’ (p. 323). All the culturally accepted behaviors and standards of ethics (Ai tovo/va’arau va’avanua va’a viti) prescribed by va’avanua (the way of the vanua) are ‘the pillars of Fijian epistemology’ according to Nabobo- Baba (2007). A central tenet of living va’avanua is that ‘individualism for its own sake is abhorred’ (Nabobo-Baba, 2005, p. 193). The question of individualism as the antithesis of the communality inherent in the vanua concept will be a focus of this thesis.

Adherence to na sala va’avanua is perhaps epitomized in the manner and behaviour of individuals toward one another within kinship relationships: following ‘the straight path’ means maintaining and strengthening these relationships and may be understood through the structure of place-specific Fijian kinship systems and veiwekani or adherence to these systems.

The kinship system is vital for social, cultural, environmental, and economic sustainability and security and therefore must be nurtured. Veitayaki (2003) describes the Fijian kinship system as ‘a safety net’ as it enables ‘people to meet their needs in their harsh and uncertain surroundings’ (p. 9). The incentive to work is driven by

reciprocity rather then monetary reward. In other words, financial reward is secondary to kinship obligations (Nayacakalou, 1978, p.119) and Fijians know that if they foster the ties that bind the Vanua by assisting those who need help, this will be reciprocated at a time when they too require the assistance of their kin. Those who maintain strong relationships with one’s people are considered ‘wealthy’, reaffirming that notions of ‘development’ and ‘success’ rely on the building and maintenance of strong social networks. This is also implicit in the concept sautu. Reciprocity and the application of appropriate behaviour toward kin members necessary for vanua integrity, sautu and na sala va’avanua is called veiwekani.

Veiwekani or respecting and applying the appropriate behaviour to vanua relationships and kinship networks are implicit to living na sala va’avanua. Veiwekani is guided by kinship terms and is incorporated in every bodily movement and every utterance a Fijian makes. The kinship terms of Waitabu, Boumā have been recorded in detail in Annette Schmidt’s (1988) PhD thesis entitled Language in a Fijian Village: An Ethnolinguistic Study. I will only touch on some of the basic kinship relationships and observances here as this is a complex subject. As Schmidt writes; ‘The Waitabu social fabric is…an intricate network of role relationships, ascribed to a large degree by the kinship system’ (1988, p. 67). Kinship terms between Vanua often vary. As far as I am aware, Schmidt’s is the only work that has studied the ethnolinguistics of Vanua Boumā. I have attached Schmidt’s ‘Table of Kin Terms of Reference and Address’ (p. 83) (Appendix 2) for Waitabu as they are indicative of those used across Vanua Boumā.

Identifying who you are in relation to your kin is particularly vital in Boumā as marriage partners are most often chosen from within the Vanua, hence the need to avoid marrying someone too closely related. Often marriages are delayed for extended periods to ensure there is enough time for the families to check in the vola ni kawa bula (the Birth Register for indigenous Fijians held in Suva) that this does not happen. The roles (socially accepted modes of conduct) are also determined by these kinship relationships. The individual must know who they are in relation to their kin so they are able to adjust his/her role depending on whom they are dealing with. Role

relationships in Boumā belong to three main kinds of role-relationships: avoidance in which both parties practice restraint; joking in which both parties are free and non- restrained; and authority in which one member defers to the more powerful member (Schmidt, 1988, p. 68).

Some examples of kinship terms are tavale, vugo and gane. I will briefly outline these terms and the kinds of relationships accorded them. I have selected these terms because they are useful in illustrating tabu (prohibitive or avoidance) relationships which are problematic in terms of ecotourism management in Boumā. Tavale may be loosely referred to as ‘cross-cousins’:

Figure 9: Cross cousins

Tavale are on the opposite lineage group to Ego and are related to Ego by an opposite- sex sibling three or more generations removed. They may also be siblings-in-law except between two sisters-in-law which are referred to as dauve. The matanitauwati is a tavale of the opposite sex who may be a potential marriage partner. Dauve and tavale enjoy joking as the characteristic mode of behaviour. Conversation, sharing of clothes and space, are all unrestrained. This is a ‘joking’ (veiwali) relationship, a term first encountered by Radcliffe-Brown in the 1920s and is characterized by frequent ‘digs’ at one another, insults, sarcasm, and ‘bad’ jokes all made good-naturedly about each other. This is not a freedom enjoyed, for example, by veiganeni relationships or opposite sex sibling relationships which exist in stark contrast to joking relationships (Schmidt, 1988, p. 71).

Avoidance is practiced between Ego and vugo (Ego and their opposite sex children in- law) and Ego and gane (Ego’s opposite-sex siblings). Avoidance within these kin relationships usually requires no direct conversation, necessitating communication through a third party. When communication is essential it is only allowed when discussing serious topics and speech will be soft, slow and low (ibid, p. 70). A person may not address their relatives by their personal name under these relationships. A Lavena villager shared the difficulty of conducting business around these avoidance relationships:

Tabu relationships

between yourself and your uncle in the project can be very hard. Your uncle is really serious. You can’t talk to each other.

So when he asks you to do something you just say ‘yes’

You have to say ‘yes’ all the time whether his idea is good or not.

These relationships function to avoid confrontation and disregard for vanua rules and protocols.

Fijians, in general, will go to great lengths to avoid confrontation (Pirie, 2000). ‘Fijian culture, like other Pacific cultures, is imbued with an impulse to avoid confrontation. Confrontation within a group or community certainly occurs, but when it does the visceral reaction is to dampen it, to quieten and dissipate it, not to stamp it out’ (Fraser, 2000, para. 6). Arno (1980) provides one such example of conflict prevention as that of a Yanuyanu hypocritical language (called veivakaisini) which is employed to avoid shaming people publicly. As has been alluded to in Chapter Three, avoidance relationships mean that community members may not be able to ‘talk straight’. In the

following dialogue, a member of Yavusa Lavena and a staff member of the Lavena project explains the difficulty of not being able to ‘talk straight’ particularly in terms of running a business as a whole yavusa.

It is very difficult

and sometimes I want to talk to them about something straightforward but because they are related I have to talk to them another way in order not to hurt their feelings.

I’ve got to tell them somehow

in a way so as not to hurt their feelings but sometimes

when you are what you call ‘loaded’ with feelings you are just sometimes

‘bang’ just head-on and they say

‘You have hurt my feelings.’ which is difficult.

That is what is difficult.

A life that is lived according to the prescriptions of kinship (or na ivakarau ni bula vakavei wekani) is exemplified in acts of compassion toward kin (Toren, 1999, pp. 272- 273). This may be shown in gestures of kindness such as helping by spreading someone’s pandanus to dry in the sun or providing labour for house-building, providing food and domestic assistance to a family with a sick parent or child, or taking down the washing of an absent family when the rain comes. Toren (1999) reported her participants had stated that attending church together with kin strengthened compassion as it was from God that the mutual compassion of true kinship came.

Schmidt (1988) noted that although the kinship system in Boumā appears rigid, individuals have the capacity to manipulate it to some degree, illustrating individual agency within social stratification:

The individual is not a passive entity whose sociolinguistic behaviour is totally predetermined by the kinship system. The kinship system merely provides the framework in which to act, by setting out the kin-categories and the associated modes of sociolinguistic conduct, i.e. rather than passive entities whose sociolinguistic behaviour is pre-programmed, individuals are more realistically viewed as actors who construct their behaviour within the framework of the kinship system. The individual appears to use the kinship system according to his communicative needs (pp. 79-80).

This may occur when an individual is linked to another through more than one genealogical line and is, therefore, ambiguous. In this situation, the individual may choose which role best suits their needs and is subject to interpretation. Perhaps this minimal fluidity in the kinship system has been taken advantage of to create what some may consider serious breaches of the laws of veiwekani as explained below.

Schmidt (1988) noted that, during the 1980s, some avoidance behaviour was being ignored despite the kinship system remaining unaltered. For her, the most prominent of these was veivogoni (cross-parent/child) and veiganeni (opposite sex siblings) relationships. These relationships would normally require restraint and minimal communication. However, in many cases, the prescribed behaviour was ignored. Joking and conversation occurred freely and first names and familiar pronouns were employed. When Schmidt asked individuals why this was changing in Waitabu, they explained that these avoidance relationships were proving ‘inconvenient’ and ‘did not suit their communicative needs’ (1988, p. 80). However, elders disapproved of this conduct, one saying that God would punish them with speech defects (ibid, p. 81).

Here, Schmidt identifies that adherence to kinship relationships are governed by a fear of God. She also recognises a generational gap between elders and younger generations in their respect for vanua law.

Conversely, avoidance relationships that were once weakened by a member of the younger generation may be chosen to be strengthened if this will provide a more favourable condition for him or her. For example, if the individual is asked to perform something they do not wish to, the veiwe’ani protocols are once again replaced where they had broken down and used as an excuse not to carry out the task (Aporosa, personal communication, 20 March, 2009).

Despite these changes in veiwekani, the main goal for all in Boumā remains that of the desire for all to live together in harmony. It is through signs and symbols from the social and natural environment that the people of Boumā are informed as to the individual and collective success or failure of following na sala va’avanua: living life according to kinship protocols and ‘caring and sharing’. These signs and symbols will be explained in the next section after the foundations for this explanation have been laid through an introduction to the physical dimension of the vanua.