Inside Austronesian Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living.

Inside Austronesian Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living. `Houses', as Michael Young reminds us in an ironic vignetteconcerning indigenous mimesis mimesis/mi��me��sis/ (mi-me��sis) the simulation of one disease by another.mimet��ic mi��me��sisn.1. The appearance of symptoms of a disease not actually present, often caused by hysteria. , `may not be what they seem to be'(p. 182). Exploring and elucidating this point, often in extraordinarilyrich detail, is one of the primary concerns of the eight authors whosework comprises this comparative study of Austronesian houses. Like anumber of more recent works on the subject of the house, the papers inthis collection identify themes and structures which constitute salientfeatures in the cultural design and social use of the house in several,often widely separated, Austronesian societies. Yet, as James Fox For the British engineer, pioneer machine tool maker, see James Fox (engineer).For the British singer, pianist, and guitarist, see James Fox (singer).James Fox OBE (born 19 May 1939) is an English actor. pointsout in his introductory essay to the volume, the authors also recognisethe significant value of emphasising cultural difference andarticulating analytical dissidence dis��si��dence?n.Disagreement, as of opinion or belief; dissent.Noun 1. dissidence - disagreement; especially disagreement with the governmentdisagreement - the speech act of disagreeing or arguing or disputing in a comparative perspective. Thislatter approach is particularly evident in the articles by Helliwell andvan Meijl. In her eloquent discussion of Gerai longhouse longhouseTraditional communal dwelling of the Iroquois Indians until the 19th century. The longhouse was a rectangular box built out of poles, with doors at each end and saplings stretched over the top to form the roof, the whole structure being covered with bark. communities,Christine Helliwell argues against the common anthropologicalrepresentation of longhouses as primarily entities consisting ofseparate, discrete apartments. Instead, Helliwell directs our attentionto the longhouse as a community connected by the flow of light andsound, respectively emanating from the hearths and voices of thelonghouse residents. In a different vein, van Meijl takes issue with anumber of Maori scholars who have tended to overlook the historicaldevelopment and transformation of Maori meeting-houses in their emphasisupon the temporal and cultural continuities of this formation.Continuing this critical and reflexive stance, Fox himself cautionsagainst the often found tendency in works of this kind to singularise Verb 1. singularise - distinguish as singularsingularizedistinguish, signalise, signalize - make conspicuous or noteworthy and homogenise Verb 1. homogenise - break up the fat globules of; "homogenized milk"homogenizechange state, turn - undergo a transformation or a change of position or action; "We turned from Socialism to Capitalism"; "The people turned against the President when he stole symbolic orders and argues, as does Clifford Sather inhis article on the lban longhouse, for the recognition of a `pluralityof symbolic orders' (p. 23). In addition to this focus on sameness and difference within acomparative framework, this publication can be contrasted with othervolumes on the subject by the fact that the authors have adopted a viewof Austronesian societies from the angle of `inside' the house.What constitutes `inside' in each of the Austronesian societiesconsidered by the authors forms one of the central concerns of thisvolume. This view from the inside generates a wealth of ethnographicriches concerning the cultural definition and ordering of`domestic' social spaces. In this connection, the articles bySather and Fox respectively provide the reader with a detailed itineraryof lban and Rotinese cultural knowledge concerning the physical, ritual,social, cosmological, ontological and temporal organisation oftraditional houses. In these two papers, as well as in the chapters byAlexander, Helliwell, and Ng, the authors make it quite clear that thecategory of `inside' is defined and ordered in relation to a numberof other pervasive and recurring cultural orientations and complementaryoppositions. For example, a number of the authors identify anassociation between `inside' and cultural notions concerning whatis `female'; an affinity explored in more detail by Cecilia Ng andRoxana Waterson. Unfortunately, both women feel it is necessary tochallenge what are now widely regarded as dated and exhaustedassumptions surrounding the representation of women in terms of a seriesof dichotomous di��chot��o��mous?adj.1. Divided or dividing into two parts or classifications.2. Characterized by dichotomy.di��chot relations (eg inside:outside::private:public::nature:culture::women:men). In this connection, Ngattempts to correct what she considers is `a misleading' view ofgendered space and, in doing so, acknowledges the pivotal role of womenas negotiators and mediators among the `matrilineal' Minangkabau ofWest Sumatra. Waterson, on the other hand, takes a more general approachto the politicisation of space, the empowerment of place and theimplication of these processes for women. Notwithstanding the stated and substantiated significance of an`inside' perspective, the points made and the conclusions reachedby Helliwell, van Meijl and Young clearly argue against this positionand instead they posit an approach which situates the house in a broadersocial, spatial and temporal context. The papers by Michael Young andToon van Meijl are particularly interesting in their often entertainingdiscussion of colonial `domestic designs for living' within thecontexts of island Melanesia and New Zealand New Zealand(zē`lənd), island country (2005 est. pop. 4,035,000), 104,454 sq mi (270,534 sq km), in the S Pacific Ocean, over 1,000 mi (1,600 km) SE of Australia. The capital is Wellington; the largest city and leading port is Auckland. . In referring to colonialorders and practices, Young and van Meijl indirectly point to one of theprimary limitations of previous and, in some cases, more recentethnographies on eastern Indonesian societies. Namely, a tendency todisregard the `plurality of symbolic orders', of which we couldinclude the symbolic orders of colonial regimes and emergentnation-states. which often inform the ordering and orientation ofAustronesian houses. Fox, in his all too brief discussion of changes inRotinese house design associated with modernisation campaigns on thepart of the Indonesian government in the early 1970s. hints at theexistence and impact of these other orders. However, it is clear fromthe tone of his description that Fox views these transformations assomewhat `sad' and less `remarkable' developments on`traditional' Rotinese houses. Not so Michael Young, who, in apaper which can best be described as iconoclastic i��con��o��clast?n.1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.2. One who destroys sacred religious images. in terms of theoverall themes of this volume, explores the inventive and creativespatial responses of Kalauna people to colonial and post-colonialconditions on Goodenough Island. While James Fox compellingly arguesthat houses can be regarded as `theatres of memories', Young'sdiscussion of the impermanence im��per��ma��nent?adj.Not lasting or durable; not permanent.im��perma��nence, im��per of Kalauna houses suggests that we shouldalso be mindful of the cultural significance of forgetting. Theperishable nature of Kalauna houses, coupled with the observations madeby Young that `the typical Kalauna house shape ... signifies nothing butitself' (p. 187) and that rights in house sites rather than housesthemselves are transmitted through time, further points to the value ofviewing Austronesian houses from a range of social angles and through anumber of different cultural apertures, rather than just focusing uponthe position available from `inside'. A position, I should pointout, which is historically familiar to many anthropologists gazing as wehave done, both literally as fieldworkers and narratively as authors,from the doors of our collective tents. Perhaps, one of the least explored themes in this volume onAustronesian houses is the concept of the house as a social group. Whilemost authors make some reference to the house as a social unit, thetendency among the authors, with the notable exception of James Fox, isto view these units as either somewhat distorted `descent groups'or as loose `kinship groups'. Thus. notwithstanding Fox'sefforts to situate sit��u��ate?tr.v. sit��u��at��ed, sit��u��at��ing, sit��u��ates1. To place in a certain spot or position; locate.2. To place under particular circumstances or in a given condition.adj. this study of Austronesian houses in relation toLevi-Strauss' proposition that the `house' represents `anintermediate [type of social] structure between elementary and complexstructures' (p. 7), innovative reconsideration of the trusted andsomewhat tired paradigms invoked to explain social organization in manyAustronesian societies awaits another volume on the subject of the`house as a topic of study'.