Técnica quirúrgica

“Who speaks in the name of whom? Who represents whom?”

(Callon, 1986a, p. 214).

The tangata whenua had to answer these crucial questions for their problematization to succeed as in reality through the process of translation only a “few rare individuals” or spokesperson (ibid) could speak for each actant, either Kererū or other hunted species. Tangata whenua, in contrast, have a very defined and hierarchical structure to their society where leadership rested largely upon age and seniority and spokespersons included rangatira (leaders), tohunga (learned experts) and kaumātua (elders) [as discussed in Section 4.2.3.]. In representing the Kererū it can be understandably questioned whether the tangata whenua really claimed it made itself available for hunting. Tangata whenua however had created a specific role in which the Kererū are there to be used and were not there accidentally. Their legends told that the forest god, Tāne Mahuta, had provided Kererū and if they were not utilised by humans they would be deemed superfluous and Tane would not replenish them (Lyver et al., 2009, p. 10) Still even with this translation it is impossible to know how representative the Kererū individuals which were available to hunting were of the entire anonymous population50. The tangata whenua had successfully negotiated the intéressement of each actant through only the segment of available individuals, silencing those who were not in agreement and ‘black-boxing’ them within the group defined as accepting the translation.

50 _{Included silent or elusive population outside hunting ranges, subspecies in remote areas or those individuals,} which remained uncounted and thus deemed unavailable.

This redefinition was successful and no other definition was proposed, the ‘invisible’ Kererū did not contradict the Kererū which were available51 therefore according to Callon “that which is true for a few is true for the whole population” (Callon, 1986a, p. 216). In a similar manner one could imagine opening the problematizers black-box and understanding how the chief and elders who perpetuated the oral mythology (Best, 1922) were spokespersons who successfully mobilized entire iwi and populations. The result of this is that individuals are able to represent the masses and even tangata whenua can be viewed as a ‘black-boxed’ and more simplified actant, not representative of the complexity of actuality in which tangata whenua were made up of tribes, iwi and hapu. As inscriptions largely perpetuate this ‘black-boxed’ tangata whenua identity, or examine only at an iwi level rather than individual level it can be understood that there was only minimal leakage of those who did not agree with the Kaitiakitanga concept and mythologies as no major rival network was able to be recorded or sustained for any discernable length of time52. However it is also important to recognize that there may have been disagreement between different iwi at the time on best practice i.e. eating more or less Kererū. Mobilisation in the network can be seen as a success as the masses (Kererū, tangata whenua and adaptable bird species) that did not betray their representation

By examining the abundance of available Kererū seasonally53 the tangata whenua wished to know they could rely on Kererū in their negotiations of harvest objects, but what remains unknown is how many Kererū made themselves available for harvest. Availability is the equivalent in ANT terms to a “vote”, and the counting of abundance corresponds directly to negotiations with the tangata whenua. Kererū that made themselves available were counted and the tangata whenua converted these numbers into an oral history and stories. This history was then later used in decision making, providing power to the tangata whenua to reduce harvest or imposes rahui (bans) in times of lower abundance and to validate increased takes in times of higher abundance. Renganathan explains how this concept of rahui was enforced:

During the bird hunting months, forests were placed under restriction to all but designated hunters. Different types of restrictions were enforced depending on what was to be achieved. A rahui or temporary ban on hunting could be enforced during breeding seasons. It could be set up in places for a few seasons to allow birds time to increase their numbers. A rahui was often marked by an object such as a post painted in red ochre

51 _{In a similar manner in the previous network the unavailable Moa and other megafauna because more} representative than those available – A successful mobilisation in a rival extinction network.

52 _{In fact only few examples exist of leakage from inscription – The tangata whenua tribe who was eaten for} taking someone else’s Kererū. Thus the mobilisation was able to persist and a rival network was “thwarted” 53 _{Historically tribes had a qualitative knowledge of birds numbers harvested in the previous season and could it} with current bird observations. Restrictions could result from smaller harvests in previous season (Renganathan, 2004).

along the boundary of the area. Rahui could be spread through word of mouth, and backed up by the mana of the chief who proclaimed it.

(2004, p. 53)

As a result the tangata whenua are authorized to speak legitimately for the Kererū, available or not, and were able to speak and act in their name. This notion of a spokesman, who doesn’t speak, while seemingly an oxymoron, in fact does not pose any problem as Callon explains “To speak for others is to first silence those in whose name we speak” ” (1986a, p. 216). While it is difficult to silence a human in a definitive manner (an idea to be explored further in future translations) it is in actuality altogether more difficult to silence, and by extension to speak for, an entity that does not present an articulate language. This results in the previous need for continuous adjustments and sophisticated devices of intéressement, as presented in the tangata whenua’s whakapapa. Originally the tangata whenua and Kererū were dispersed and not entirely accessible to each other for translation, however after mobilisation tangata whenua were able to define Kererū.

Through the designation of spokesman and settlement of similarities all actants can be displaced and reassembled in a particular place and time. Thus mobilisation, as claimed by Law (1986), is able to take on a “definitive physical reality” through a process of displacement and reassembly. This can be understood as the abundance of available Kererū being counted by the tangata whenua in situ and being displaced to their pā where the hunters to the tribe reassemble it, orally. The available Kererū are then displaced, again, to be recorded in the oral records of the tribe and reassembled in a different time, years later for a comparison of seasonal abundance. The Kererū is transported from its habitat and representation renders its displacement easier than the alternative of taking the entire tribe to participate in the count while established equivalences allow the hunters and oral record keepers to become spokesman for the available Kererū. The result of this is striking; a diverse population of Kererū is mobilized and have been displaced from their home in the forest to the tangata whenua pā54. Fig. 4.6 summarizes this movement as well as the events discussed in Section 4.3. The initial problematization of Kererū as food and decoration was translated through these stages to a problematization in which Kererū is a Taonga. The translation is complete; a network is formed and remains largely punctualized until the entrance of European colonists (i.e. kept stable as shown in Fig. 4.4).

54 _{This is to say they have first be displaced from their diverse population to be reassembled as available Kererū,} then again to be reassembled through a count to the tangata whenua leaders then finally to be reassembled in a different time for comparison.

Figure 4.6: First Translation of Kererū to Taonga