Overview
This paper explores the experience of 'local' in Hawaii for women
who are third generation (Sansei) American's of Japanese Ancestry
(AJA). It begins with a short introduction to the field where I
conducted my research, followed by a brief discussion regarding
theories of ethnicity and cultural identity in anthropology. I then
outline some cultural representations of 'local' identity in Hawai'i,
before discussing the politics of local identity in relation to
AJA women's experiences in the Islands.
The Field
When I embarked on my research of AJA in Hawai'i in January of
1999, I had been lured to the field by images of tropical warm days,
hours spent writing up interviews and field notes under palm trees
and the sound of an ukulele floating across gentle sea breezes for
six months. I believed, (albeit rather naively) I had found an island
paradise with a pocket of discreetly bounded ethnicities, one, the
AJA, whose identity and cultural maintenance would be unproblematic
to study.
My initial intention was to research the transmission of cultural
identity between third and fourth generation AJA women in the islands.
Such ideas were steeped in assumptions about what constituted ethnicity
and how cultures were maintained. I was seeking tangible, measurable
aspects of culture to understand why AJA constituted an ethnic group
in Hawaii. My first three weeks were spent on the island of Hawai'i
in Hilo, where I interviewed my first three Sansei women. With limited
success I pushed for information about their 'Japanese-ness', and
became frustrated when I realized that having Japanese ancestry
did not necessarily constitute Sansei women's identity. Instead,
their identity and ethnicity was a complex blend of contemporary
and historical relationships that ebbed and flowed throughout their
lives and during their interviews. I changed my approach and subsequent
interviews on the islands of O'ahu and Kauai, focused on 'what being
Sansei' meant for AJA women in Hawai'i. A rather broad and encompassing
topic, but it served the purpose for exploring the multiplicity
of identities that are experienced by not just AJA, but all 'locals'
living on the islands.
Ethnicity versus Cultural Identity
One of the most prominent aspects of life on the islands, especially
for Sansei AJA was the concept of their uniqueness and distinctiveness
in relation to local culture. For those living on the islands, the
idea of 'local' distinguished them from outside groups impinging
on their society and also created a sense of cohesion among the
ethnic groups living on the islands. While some of the political
and economic factors associated with local identity are discussed
here (1), emphasis is placed on the concept of local as experienced
by Sansei women in the islands. The following exploration of models
of ethnicity and cultural identity attempts to address how local
identity be conceptualized and has been constructed in Hawai'i.
Anthropologists and sociologists continue to develop and suggest
new categories to explain the diverse experiences of identity and
ethnicity now appearing in a globalized world. The way in which
ethnicity is experienced and constructed by different groups is
also being called for consideration.
n 1990, Linnekin and Poyer explored an 'Oceanic Perspective' of
cultural identity. Distinguishing between cultural identity and
ethnicity, they argued that ethnicity is a Western set of theories
based on the proposition that people can be classified according
to physical and behavioral differences; moreover these ascriptions
are "presumptively determined by…origin and back ground (Barth 1969,
13) (and) is seen as a natural, unambiguous bond "in the blood""(ibid:
2). Cultural identity is associated with an Oceanic approach based
on the premise that "(S)hared identity comes from sharing food,
water, land, spirits, knowledge, work and social activities" (ibid.:
8). In their volume Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in the Pacific,
Linnekin, Poyer, and other social scientists explore the construction
of cultural identity and ethnicity in the Pacific, drawing on the
Mendelian/Lamarckian models of identity.
The Mendelian model, associated with a Western approach to ethnic
identity "emphasizes biological inheritance of substance as the
determinant of identity…sees individual identity as determined more
or less irrevocably by descent and predictable from facts of parentage…dichotomizes
shaping influences before and after birth as two qualitatively different
sets of factors…" (Linnekin and Poyer 1996: 7-8). A Lamarckian model,
considered to be that most often used in the construction of cultural
identity in the Pacific "emphasizes the role of social relationships
in determining an individual's essential characteristics…holds that
how you live and how you behave are at least as important as biological
parentage in determining who you are socially…people are not simply
born into social groups but may - in fact, must - become members
through their actions. In Oceanic societies identity is continually
demonstrated, a matter of behaviour and performance (ibid.: 8).
In the same volume edited by Linnekin and Poyer, Howard expands
on these two approaches and outlines what he considers are the implicit
assumptions behind each approach to the criteria of ethnicity and
identity:
The European (Colonial) Perspective
Assumption 1: Genetic inheritance is the main transmitter of
a person's vital substance.
Assumption 2: Race, Culture and language strongly cohere with
one another
Assumption 3: Where race, language and culture do not cohere,
the character of the individual is determined primarily by genetic
inheritance.
Assumption 4: When mixing of races occurs, the character of the
individual is most strongly affected by the 'lowest' racial type
in their genetic makeup. (Howard 1996: 261-265)
While Howard acknowledges that this approach was based on colonialist perceptions,
the first three assumptions have been greatly influential in anthropology's
approach to the study of ethnicity, identity and culture. Even under
circumstances of diaspora and the establishment of immigrant communities,
labels relating to the place and race of origin are still applied
in categorization of peoples. Theories exploring assimilation, cultural
pluralism and even multiculturalism assume that ethnicities exist
as discreetly bounded, identifiable aspects of identity. Appaduarai's
work "Modernity at Large" encourages different approaches and considerations
that need to be acknowledged in a global world where cultural and
ethnic boundaries now no longer exist.
(1) For a detailed account of political and economic forces on
local identity see Okamura, J (1994) "Why There are Asian Americans
in Hawai'i: The Continuing Significance of Local Identity". Social
Processes in Hawai'i. 35: 161 -178
|