Becoming Sinners

8/6/2019 Becoming Sinners

1/19

University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education

Becoming Sinners: Christianity and Desire among the Urapmin of Papua New GuineaAuthor(s): Joel RobbinsSource: Ethnology, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Autumn, 1998), pp. 299-316Published by: University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773784 .

Accessed: 17/03/2011 13:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upitt. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access toEthnology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upitthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3773784?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upitthttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upitthttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3773784?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upitt


2/19

BECOMINGSINNERS:CHRISTIANITYAND DESIREAMONGT URAPMINOF PAPUA NEW GUINEA1

t Joel Robbins

This article considers he way Christianityhas transformednotionsof desire amongtheUrapminof the WestSepikProvinceof PapuaNewGuinea.WhileMelanesian argocultshavegenerallybeenunderstood s generatedby a relatively omprehensibleet of desires,UrapminChristianityhas focused not on realizingdesires but rather on definingandcontrollingthem. In its efforts to exercise such control, Christianityhas come intoconflictwith traditionalUrapmin ocialstructure.The atter dependedupon a dialecticalrelationshipbetweenwillfulnessand lawfulness hatallowed hem both to be valuedandto set limitson one another.By demonizing ll willfulness,Christianity as made sinnersof those Urapminwhooperatesuccessfullywithin hatsocialstructure.Aftertracingtheway Christianityhascreated his contradiction, hisarticleconcludesby examiningnewChristian rituals that have developed n order to allow people to resolve some of itseffects on their lives. (Christianity,desire, Melanesia,social structure, ritual)

The study of religious movements in PapuaNew Guineahas recently been dominatedby a rethinkingof the anthropologicalanalysis of cargo cults. Critics have arguedthatthe notion of the cargo cult is a faulty analytic construct (McDowell 1988), aprojection of Western models of desire onto Melanesians (Lindstrom 1993), or aconcept forged in pursuit of colonial domination(Lattas 1992; Kaplan 995)o Oneconsequence of these claims has been the reopening of ethnographicquestions longsince thought closed about the nature of colonial and postcolonial Melanesianreligious activity. Until recently, educationalprograms, local development groups,Christianchurches, national elections, or almost anything of interest to Melanesianswere liable to be described as a cargo cult by some social scientist (for examples, seeSwatridge 1985; Walter 1981; see Lindstrom 1993:ch. 3 for a review). At present,by contrast, it is not clearwhat, if anything, shouldbe described in those terms. Thissituation presents an opportunity o begin thinking about contemporaryMelanesian

* . .re lglon ln new ways.This artlcle conslders the role of ideas aboutdesire in the Christlan religlon ofthe Urapmin of West Sepik Province. As in other parts of Papua New Guinea,Christianity in Urapmin is focused on the millennial themes of Jesus's imminentreturn and God's impending judgment, and this lends it at least a superElcialsimilarity to cargoism (cf. Gibbs 1977; Guiart 1970; Kempf 1992; Kulick 1992;Lawrence and Meggitt 1965; Ryan 1969). Yet there are at least two strikingdifferences between UrapmlnChristianityand cargo religion as the latter has usuallybeen understood, and both differences turn on the role desire plays within UrapminChristianlty.First, for the Urapmln, questlons ahout he natureof desire aboutwhatls desirable and how deslres should be acted upon are one of the primary forcesdriving their Christianbelief and practice. While classic accounts of cargo cultismalways acknowledge the very intense desires that drive these movements, they tend299ETHNOLOGYvol. 37 no. 4, Fall 1998, pp. 299-316.ETHNOLOGY, c/o Deparanentof Anthropology,The University of Pittsburgh,PittsburghPA 15260 USACopyrighte 1998 The Universityof Pittsburgh.All rights reserved.


3/19

300 ETHNOLOGYto treat these desires as H1xed nd unproblematic:eople are seeking politicalautonomyn thefaceof colonialdominationWorsley1968),moral quivalencewiththecolonizers Burridge1960;Lawrence 97111964]) or cognitiveconsistencynsituations f radical hange Lawrence 971[1964]).Instead f consideringndetailhow peopleformulateduch desires,these authors withthe partialexceptionofBurridge) rimarilynvestigatehewaypeoplego aboutachievingheirgoals It isthe meansemployed n cargocults (the rituals hatmimiccolonialroutines,thegardenseftabandoned,tc.), ratherhan hedesires hatputthesemeans nmotion,that requireexplanation.n Urapmin,by contrast, t is desireitself thatreligiousactivity eeksto understandndcontrol.Second, the Urapmindif:fer rom canonicalcargo cultists in the way theirreligiousconcernsarelargely ocusedwithin heUrapminommunitytself.As thelistof standardargoistmotivationsresentedbovemakes vident, raditionalargoculttheorysuggeststhatpeopleengage n thesemovementsn order o transformtheirrelationswithWesternolonizers.2Urapminoalsdonotlead n thisdirection,however,but are insteadfocused on transformingelationsbetweenindividualUrapminandbetweendifferentaspectsof each individual'spersonalitytUtUp3).HencesUrapminChristianityendsto castpeopleas individuals nd as communitymembers, ather hanas subjectsof a colonialorpostcolonial oliticalregime.Given hedifferences etweenheuntilrecently ccepted nderstandingsfcargocultsandUrapm1nmillenn1alellglon, helatter learlydemandsobe understoodnterms other than tllose used to understandhe former.I suggestthat UrapminChristianitymustbeexaminednrelationoanindigenousmodelof theroleof desirein individualmotivationhat s closely inked o Urapminocialstructure.Christiani-ty has significantly ltered he indigenous nderstandingf desirewithoutgreatlychanginghe socialstructurehatdepended pon heearliermodelfor its perpetua-tion. The tensionthathasresulted romthe contradictionetween he demands fUrapminocialstructurend henewideasaboutdesire hat heUrapmin ave akenfromChristianitys central o contemporary rapminociallite andgives impetusto theirconcernswith the natureof desireoHavingdemonstratedhiss the articleexamineshow onerecentlydeveloped ollectivepossession itualbothdisplaysandto some extent mediatesbetweenthe conflictingmodelsof desirethat exist incontemporary rapmin ulture.

THEURAPMINTheUrapmin re a groupof about375people ivingin theWestSepikProvinceof PapuaNew GuineaTheirpostcontactxperience as been,withonespectacularexceptlon,muchlike thatof othergroups ivingin remoteregionsof PapuaNewGuinea Facingan approximatelyeventeen-miletrenuouswalkto Telefomin, heDistrlctOffice,andclosestregularlyervicedairstrip,Urapminiferevolves argelyaround ubsistenceagriculture, unting,andChristian eligiouspractice.The oneexceptional spectof UrapminifethatdoesnotElthemoldof PapuaNew Guinean


4/19

CHRISTIANITYND DESIREAMONGTHE URAPMIN301rural routine is the experience they have of the huge Ok Tedi mine located in thetown of Tatubil; a two-and-a-half-daywalk from Urapmin, or a short plane flightfrom Telefomin. Many Urapmin men worked to build the town of Tabubil in theearly 1980s and in recent years there have always been a handful of Urapminemployed there. By the early 1990s a routine had developedin which many Urapminvisit Tabubilat least once every two or threeyears, and more often for some leadingmen and theirfamilies. In the context of the argument o be developed here, Tabubilfigures most importantlyas a place where people 1) become aware of the wide rangeof consumer goods one might desire, and 2) can seek some refuge from the demandsfor sharing ones resourcesthat village life makes (see Jorgensen 1981).From the mid-196Os hrough the mid-1970s many Urapmin convertedto a formof Christianitybrought to them by Telefomin and Urapminpastors who had trained

at the Australian Baptist Mission in Telefomin. Although no expatriatemissionaryever lived in Urapmin, an extensive local effort to teach people the rudiments ofChristianityand to train them to read the Bible in Tok Pisin (the lingua franca) ledby the mid-1970s to a situation in which this small ruralcommunity was possessedof a fair number of very lcnowledgeableChrlstians.A revival movement that beganin the Solomon Islands andsubsequentlyswept throughmany parts of the PapuaNewGuinea hlghlands reached Urapmin in 1977. Within a year. most people in thecommunity had been zkickedn by the Holy Spirit and everyone had converted toChristianity. From the time the rebaibal (as it is known locally) commencedzUrapmin Christianity began to take on a distinctly charismatic cast; by the early1990s it featured a well-developed focus on healing, possession, constant prayer,confession, and frequent, lengthy churchservices.Two linkedthemes dominatedUrapminChristianity n the early 1990s. One wasthe imminent coming of the last days (las de), when Jesus would return and taketllose who followed his law to heaven (abEiligin) (see Robbins 1997*In press) Theother, upon which this article focuses?concerns the ethical necess1tyto live a goodChristian life (Kristin ). However, since only those who live such a life will beable to go tO heaven, Urapminmillennialismalso focuses intensely on ethical issueswThus the two areas of Christianconcern are tightly tied together and the heat ofUrapmin millennial worry does much to fuel their constantethical self-examination.The most important eatureof a good Christian ife is a very high sensitivity tothe needs of others and the dictates of the law of the governmentand the Bible (takento be the same in most cases; see RobbinsIn press) combined with a consistentefforttO control one9s own desires. Pastors, big men, parents, and youth leadersnever tireof haranguing heir varlous charges aboutthe1rmoral failings and the need for themtc) rlght themselves. Sermons can beg1nwith seemingly any Bible passage and stillresolve lnto a plea for people to control their desires and obey the law. In generala strong moralizing tone that turns on issues of the law and self-control is probablythe most marked feature of both everyday and religious discourse in Urapmin.Currently, hese discoursesare completely Christianized.But it is also clear that thesethemes were important in traditional life as well. In order to understandhow the


5/19

302 ETHNOLOGYcharacterf these ssueshaschangedwiththe developmentf UrapminChristianity,we needto consider heformtheytookin pre-Christianrapminife.

LAWFULNESS,DESIRE,ANDSOCIALSTRUCTUREAnthropologistsave longpointedoutthatmanyMelanesianocietiesseemtoholdtwo contradictoryalues n roughly he sameesteemeOntheonehand,peoplesee a willingnessto aggressively mposeones willSwlnethern war or in morequotidianeadershipituationsSs a quality hatconfers ndividualuccessandthatallowsa person o actas a keymember f thecommunity.Onthe otherhand, hosesamepeopleareequally ikelyto stressthe needfor peopleto be sensitiveto theneedsof others, andto applaudhe personwho is quickto compromiseand to

controlhis or herowndesires n the interest f community armony.Forexample,Read(1959) refersto the contradictoryaluesof strength" andzequivalencetnGahuku-Gama.urridge1975:92)discusses hetensionbetweenaself-willednessXand"self-restraint"mong he Tangu whileWhite(1980)considers he valuesofi'socialharmony" ndsocialwdominanceXmong he A9ara.Beneathhewelterofdescriptiveermsusedby ethnographerszoweverSt is clear hat as Brison 1995)hasshown,they aredescribing omparableituationswhentheydiscusswhatshecalls theclashbetween heidealsof zaggressivetrengthXndzsocialsensitivity"nMelanesianultures.But if the valuesthemselvesregularlybreakdown intoversionsof the sameopposition etween hekindof willfulimpositionhatgetsthingsdone n egalitariansocietiesandan almostpassivesolicitousnesshatmakesone a popularneighbor,there is greatvarietyin the ways differentcultures ink these valuesto speciE1cpositionswithin hesocial ield.InGahuku-Gama,orexample leadersareexpectedto embodybothqualitiesn theirbehaviorRead1959).White 1980)hypothesizesthatthe situationwas similar or A'araleaders n the past. In othersocieties thecontradictionsremediated y valuingonekindof behaviornwomenand heotherin men: henceKwangamen are seen as aggressiveandwomen as co-operative,whereas n Gapun, hegendered xpectationsretheopposite Brison1995;Kulick

1992;see also Harrison1985).Onegeneralizationhatthesevarieddatasuggest sthat he tension hat ollowsfromhighlyvaluing wocontradictoryindsof behavioris generallycontained n one of two ways. Eitherthe conflictingbehaviorsareexpectedonlyof avery limited lassof bigmen,whopresumablyrewillingto takeon the difficultyof living ln contradictorylrcumstancesYoung 1983; Robbins1994),or the two valuesaresegregated y genderThe Urapmln aseShowever,doesnot Elt hepatternnwhlchthecontradictionls eitherpertinent nly to those in a few socialpositionsor is avoidedaltogether.Instead?he Urapmin oldthateveryonemustbalanceheirwillfulnessagainst heirability o actinaccordance iththezlaw" hatenjoinshem o besensitive o others.Inwhatmaybe calledthetraditionalUrapminmodelof desire thesetwo typesofactionareunderstoodo be ina dialecticalelationship ith oneanother ndbothare


6/19

CHRISTIANITYND DESIREAMONGTHEURAPMIN 303considered ecessaryor the constructionf social ife. Calling his model raditionalis warranted ecause t was (andis) very well articulated ith the Urapmin ocialstructure, nd t flndsexpressionn important artsof their raditionalitual ystem.

Urapmindiscussthesetwo values in termsof a traditional ppositionbetweenwillfulness futabemin) ndfollowingthe law (awem)or obeyingthe demandsofothers wengsankamln;it. tO hear peech).Peoplearewillfulwhen heyactdirectlyontheirdesireswithoutconcern or others.Suchbehavior s initiated y a personswill or desire (san, laik),whichis located n the heart aget)but is distinguishedfromthe processesof thought aget ukanin)whicharealso lodged here.Desireisalsocloselylinked o several motions,all of whicharise tabemin)nthe heart.Forexample,desire frequentlyeadsto anger(aget atal), both in the personwhosewishesarefrustrated ndin those whomthe willfulpersondisregardsn pursuitofhis or herown ends.In othercases desireexpresses tselfin behaviormotivated yenvyor jealousy.Lawfulbehaviors y contrast.s solicitousof othersand nvariablycreatesorbolsters ocialharmonySmith1994;Brison1991).Lawfulbehaviors sodistinct romwillfulaction hat t is notusuallyattributedO desireatall, butis saidrathero spring romgoodthinkingaget utunintangbal).In the more traditional reasof their life thatbearon theirsocialstructureindomainssuch as their systemof kinship,residence,and production)he Urapminrecognizea dialectical elation etweenwillfulnessand awfillnesshatholdsboth obe sociallynecessary.Urapminnever talkaboutaction n thesefields in termsofpeoplefollowinglaws or rules or instantiatingtructuresPitt-Rivers1971:xvii-xviii). Instead, heysaypeopleput themselveslltO relationshipsy exercising heirwills (san) andfollowing heirdesires.In saying his, the Urapmin rerecognizingthatas a set of rulesor norms,their social structure adlyunderdeterminesheirsocial ife: no setof speciiSlcnjunctionsbouthowto carryoutdifferent elationshipsexplains heway people ivetheir ives.Urapmin inships cognatic ndswithalmostall marriages ccurringwithin heconE1nesf thecommunity,mostpeoplecan anddo claim significantkin connectionswithalmosteveryotherUrapmin.Moreover,becausepeoplevery oftenshiftresidenceby movinghouses betweenvillagesandeven maintainhouses in more thanone village they are likelyto activatea largenumberof these kin connections hroughoutheir lives. Hencethe kinshipandresidence structuresshift constantly. Furthermore,neither of the structuresdetermineshe composition f work groups,whichis another rea n whichchangefrequentlyakesplace. In short,the picture he Urapminpaint s largelyaccurate:peoplechooseonthe basisof theirdesireswithwhom o livesaffiliatemostcloselyandwork.The Urapmin n occasionalmostseemto argue hatif peopledid not exercisetheirwills in orderto createrelationshipsf kinship,residenceS ndco-operativelabor, henmostformsof socialassociationwouldcease. Twoexamplesof thewaysinwhichpeoplecreate ocialrelations nthe basis of theirwills illustratehispoint.Urapmin illagesarefragile nstitutions. he composition f villages s not givenbyidealsencoded nlinshiprelations, ndpeoplerelated n a varietyof ways canreside


7/19

304 ETHNOLOGYtogether in a village But there is no guarantee hatthey will come together. Singlefamilies (usually consisting of a mother, father,theiradultmale children, andthosechildren'swives andoffspring)sometimesbuild a house on a clearingset apart romany of the villages, andthe possibility of solitary living is always availableto thosewho tire of the demandsof village sociality. Furthermore?ven thoughmost Urapmindo 11avea house in at least one -village,they spend much of thelr t1me living insolitarybush houses, and this meansthatthe existenceof a physicalvillage of severalhouses does not ensurethe existenceof a functioningsocial village (Jorgensen1981).Against all the attractionsof solitary living?it is big men (karnok) ho laborto putpeople into villages. One of the two verbsthatdescribesthis (daptemin)efersto theway big men '4arrange" eople into villages; coaxing themto leave othervillages orsolitary dwellings tO come together in a larger social unit. And it is big men whostruggle to keep the people of a village interactingandworkingtogetherby settlingdisputesandharanguing hem aboutthe needfor co-operation.Whena big man dies,his village residents scatter in several directions. At any given moment, then, theresidentialsituationin Urapminis dependenton the wills of the big men.The Urapminunderstandingof marriagesimilarlyevidences the importantrolethey give to people's desires in creatingtheirsocial structure.Urapminmarriagesarealways initiatedby women. Ideallysno one should attemptto influence a woman'sdecision of whom to marry.In reality, a womanvsparents,her sisters andbrothers,and various suitors may all try to guide her choice. Urapminfeel very strongly,however, that the decision is the woman's alone. When a woman has indicatedthatshe has made a choiceSan older male relativewill ask her what her will (san) is inthe matter. While the man she chooses, or his family can refuse her proposal, amarriagecan only begin with an act of will on a woman's part Men whose namesare never called live out their lives as bachelors. Urapmintend to see a woman's'4calling the name' of a man as something of an exemplary act of creativewillfulness, andthe event of askinga womanherwill is approachedwith the kind ofanxiety and ritualizedindirectionthatbefits a momentwhen a culturereveals itselfto itself in a particularlynakedform. Revealedat this momentis the extent to whichUrapminsociety relies on the exercise of individualwills to give it shape4

Big men andmarriageablewomanexercise theirwills in highly markedways intlle creationof social relations.But in less publiclyrecogn1zedways all Urapm1n reengagedin creat1ngheir own social worlds throughacts of will. Ordinarymen mustdrawpeople (such as sons-in-law)intotheirhouseholdsSandmustwork to keeptheirsons from leaving. Women must see to it that in-marryingdaughters-in-lawobeytheir wills in the organizationof householdtasks. Young people exercise theirwillsin puttingtogethersportsteams(significantsoeial structuralunits in Urapmin),whilechildren, the paragonsof willful big-headedness tantrumhystericallyuntil someonehandy ilfills the parentalrole in an acceptablefashion. In all of these cases, it iswillful behavlor that establishes the relationshipsthat give Urapminsocial life itsshape.


8/19

CHRISTIANITYND DESIREAMONGTHE URAPMIN 30sAs the foregoing suggests, the Urapminhave a healthy respect for the power ofthe will as a tool to use in the creationof sociality. Yet this respect is balanced byan equally high value the Urapminplace on the good behavioror lawfulness (kakuptangbaDhat follows from good thinling and from zhearingX weng sankamin)thedemands of others. Good behavior is evaluated in relationto several ethical codes,all of which require that people control their own desires. The most basic of thesecodes enjoins reciprocity and mutual support (dangdagalin)n all relationships.Expectations are high thatpeople will give to those who give to them, and that theywill be forthcomingwith donations of laborwhen friends or relatives call for them.As in manyMelanesiansocieties, those who eat alone (feginin)are condemnedwhilethe ideal person always lets others eat from his or her hand (sigil). Beyond thisgeneral code?there existed until recently a second thatconsisted of an elaborate set

of taboos (awem) hat dictatedwho could eat what foods use what land, touch whatobjects, and know what information.This system of tabooos resentedpeople with afine structure of rules that shaped their everyday lives (Robbins 1995). It alsosupportedthe code of generalizedreciprocity by demandingthat people share foodsthat they themselves could not eat. A final code, also called awem but clearlydifferent from the code of taboos, consists of a generalizedset of social prohibitionsor "laws" (as they are now called in Tok Pisin) forbidding adultery, angerzfighting,theft, and other actions that threaten social harmony (tenamin angbal, zutpelasindaun).These three codes togetherinterpolatean ideal subjectwho completely subsumeshis or her will under a welter of rules that take much of the choice out of daily life.The kind of willful activity mentioned ahove (activity that frequentlyleads to angerand fighting and that is premisedon ignoringor askingothers to ignorethe demandsof reciprocity and mutual support that inhere in establishedrelationships) conflictsstarkly with action that is guided by these codes. Indeed, it often thi-eatens o tearapartthe social structure hat is in place and it is on this basis that it is condemned.Urapmin have been willing to live with these contradictory images of idealbehavior because they recognize that both kinds of behavior are necessary for thecreation and maintenance of their social life. Without indigenous models of socialstructure as-a net of interwoven rules hung on a scaffolding of pregiven kinshiprelations, only willful action can establish social relationships; it is akin to thestartingmechanismsoughtby theoristsof reciprocity. Once those relationshave beenestablished, however, norms of lawfulness enjoining reciprocity, sensitivity, andrespect always apply to them. Having chosen to live in a particularvillage, it wouldbe willful in a negative sense for me to disregard attempts to co-ordinate actionamong village members. Similarly, it would be an act of unsanctionedwillfulness tosecretly kill a pig and not share its meatwith those with whom I usually share. Aftera young woman willfully initiates a marriage, any act of adultery on her part standsas an unacceptabledisplay of willfulness. And so on. In sum, all relatlons sev upexpectations olE awful behavior which constrain desire, but those relatlons areinltlally created hy people acting on their desires; willful hehavior is necessary to


9/19

306 ETHNOLOGYestablishthe relationshipsn which the law applies, while lawful behaviorisnecessaryf thoserelationshipsre to continue. deally?he two kindsof behaviorexistina dialectical alancehatallows orboth hecreation f relations nd ortheirmaintenance.That ideal balance s fragile, and is one that the Urapminadmit is rarelyachieved. ndeed, he system s likelyto be in an unbalancedtatemostof the time.This is so because he willfulpersonneverconfrontsa blanksocialfield, and soevery act of social creationalso undercuts he lawful demandsof some priorrelation.5For example if big manX zpullsbpersonY to his village?he andYtogether iolate heexpectationsf reciprocltyndmutualupportY's former illagematesexpected romhim or her. For this reason? isputesregularlyollow everychangeof residence or of sportsteam).Andeven for thosewllo do not seek toimpose heirwills in majorwaysontheUrapminocialfield,but insteadonly wishto livetheirownlivesin a wquiet"isi, kwiet)way? he twocontradictoryaluesarehard o keepinbalance. na smallcommunitywhereeveryturningoward omeonesimultaneouslyegisters sturning way romsomeone lse, what s lawful rom hepointof view of one relationships bound o be perceivedby othersas an act ofwillfulness gainsthemselvesLeroy1979;Munn1986;Biersack 980).Everypieceof meatsharedwith one's sister is a piece takenfrom one's wife. A man whochooses o live withhis affines, hushonoringo thefullesthis obligationso them,is seenas willfulby his ownfamily.A womanhelpsher brothermakea gardenandheraffilnesee heraswillfully gnoringherobligationso them.Urapmin avebeenandare todayregularly aught n thesekindsof snares.By theirownreckoning,tmakestheirs an unusually ractiouscommunity,proneto disputes,fights, andfrequent eweavingsof the socialfabricas peoplemovefrom villageto villageinsearchof a "quietXife.Frequenttrifeandregularlyhiftingpatterns f residence ndalliance onstitutethe price the Urapminpay for basingtheir social life on the valuationof twocontradictory odelsof action.But t is alsotrue hat raditional rapminulturewaswell stockedwith mechanismsor dealingwiththe havoccausedby the clash ofwillful andlawfulbehavlor ndforkeeplng hepredictabletateof imbalancerommaking ommunityife lntolerable.TraditionalUrapminifewas marked y a varietyof ritualswhosepurposewasto smoothover relationsharmedby actsof willfulness.Dispute-resolutionitualsbasedon equivalent xchange? longwiththecustomsof buying the angern agetatul sunin) andzbuying heshameXfitom sanin) of peoplewho havebeeninjuredby one's actsof willfulness,allowed or thesettlement f disputes Robbins1996)Therewere also rituals o removeanger romthe body,ensuringhatit wouldnotcausesickness in those at whomit was aimed.The fact thatalmosteveryfamilyowneda more(r less Isolated ardenhouse also alloweddisputantswho werenotimmediatelyeady O undertakene of theserituals o absent hemselves romthevillage for a cooling-offperiod(Jorgensen1981). Finally, the extensiveuse ofculturallynjoined ractices f secrecy includingecreteating)oftenallowedpeople


10/19

CHRISTIANITYND DESIREAMONGTHEURAPMIN 307to avoid slighting others as they went about their daily activities (Robbins 1987;Bercovitch 1994).To summarize,the traditionalmodel of desire in Urapmin s one in which peopleare expected to act on their own wills in constructingnew social relationships.At thesame time, however, people are also expectedto constrain heirwills in the interestsof maintaininggood relations. By virtueof this model, the Urapminpresent everyonewith the task of living within a contradiction hat in othercultures is confrontedonlyby big men, or ls avo1dedaltogetherby splittingwillfulness and lawfulness betweenthe genders. The model handles the contradictionby suggesting a dialecticalrelationbetween the two modes of action such that the law appliesto relationscreatedby thewill while the will creates new relations out of pieces taken from previous lawfulrelationships.

Againstthebackgroundof this traditionalunderstanding,Urapmin nterpretationsof Christianityhave producedtwo new models of desire and of the broaderrelationbetween willfulness and lawfulness. Along with these new understandings, theUrapminhave developeda set of new rituals to control the problemsdesire raises forthem In both of the new Christianmodels of desire, however, the dialectical relationbetween willfulness and lawfulness is sundered. The result is a situation in whiclpeople have no opportunityto negotiate a worleablebalance hetween the two typesof action that shape their social existence. Insteads as I will show, they findthemselves tO he contlnually in breachof the norms they set for themselves. Theycall this state of breach zsin" (sin, yum; lit. debt). New rituals for the control ofdesire and the creation of lawfulness correspondinglyfocus on the removal of sin.It is to these new models and the ritualsthat they have called forth that we now turn.CHRISTIANMODELS OF DESIRE

The effect of Christlanunderstandings f desire in Urapminhas been to vilify allwillful behavior. ParadoxicallyzChrlstianityaccomplishes this ln part through amodel of desire that promotesunfetteredwillfulness in oppositionto traditional deasabouttaboo. This model is complemented, however, by a second one thatcondemnsall desire and celebrates good thinkingand good behaviorexclusively. The burdenof this section is to show that these two models, although apparentlyopposed,actually support one another;both of them force the Urapmin to attend to theirdesires and to treat them as problematically undefined (in the Elrst model) oruncontrolled in the second). Together,the two models construct he Urapminpersonas a sinner. I turn first to the Christianunderstandinghat promotes willfulness.As noted above, although the Urapmlnhave very few expliclt rules applying tosocial structural matters?they until recently had a host of rules about religioushehav1orand a great many taboos (especially on eating and land use) that were animportantpart of what they see as their indigenous law. Christianityis understoodto oppose all practices of taboo, and in the late 1970s, when Urapmin became acompletelyChristiancommunity,people abandonedraditional eligious practicesand


11/19

308 ETHNOLOGYabrogatedalmost all food taboos. Urapminsee this as very liberating. They arerelieved to have given up the initiationsin which they had to beat their sons. Andthey are especially happyto be done with the system of tabc)os hat regulatedtheirlanduse andfood consumption.They constantlyproclaimthat now they live in i'freetime" (_ taim) in which most foods can be eaten by everyone and most ground isavailable for gardening and hunting. In these areas formerly hedged with taboos,Urapminhave come tO see themselvesnot only as perfectlyfree tO, but also (as goodChristianswho do not fear retribution rom indigenousspirits) compelled to realizetheirdesires without anv regardfor formerstandardsof lawfulness(Rohhlns 1995)While the toppllngof traditionalreligion and taboos has led to a model in whichChristianity s a championof desire, pushing for its unfetteredrealization,the secondreadingUrapmintake from Christianitygoes to the oppositeextremeand vilifies alldesire except that for salvation. Only lawful behavior (here glossed as virtuallypassive behaviorthat disturbsno one and pursuesonly minimalgoals of subsistenceand reproduction)can assure one?ssalvation. Underthis model, the goal is alwaysto follow God's will and never to impose oneSs own. Those who follow God's willnot only avoid olrvioussins suclhas theft, adulterysand lying, but they also remainpeaceful in all situations9do not pusll (puslm) tllemselves or others to bend to theirdesires, and do not make others angry.Together, these two Christianmodels make desire a continualfocus of Urapminattention.Foucault (1978) has notedthat the modernconcernto represssexuality ledparadoxicallyto an intenselyexploratoryattitude owardevery aspect of sex and toan explosion of the number of discourses concernedwith sexuality. SimilarlyS heChristianconcernto guide and extinguishdesire in Urapminhas led people theretoattendassiduously to their desires and to talk aboutthem constantly. The model ofdesire as always evil 1s of course a maJorcause of this heightened interest in it;people intent on controllingtheirdesires mustfirst learnto recognize them. But themodel of desire as completely free also contributesto the Urapminpreoccupationwith the ways of theirwills; for in removingall guidelinesfor expressionof the will,this model has left the Urapminin the situationof having to worl out a new set ofnotions about what it is appropriate o desire and how it is appropriate o satistyspecif1cdesires (Hollan 1988:283-84).The evidence that desire has in fact become a preoccupation or the Urapminisexpressed in many areas of their lives. In regularconfessions ideally held at leastonce a month, people list their angers9jealousies? envies, attractions?emotionaloutbursts,and petty thefts. Some llterateUrapmlneven leep lists of thelrs1nsso thatthey will not forgel:to confess them. It should be noted that the Urapmin haveorganizedsuch contessions on thelrown, in responseto thelr sense thatdeslre needsconstant management.In the highly institutionalized orm in which they practice it,it is not an aspect of the BaptistChurch o which they belong. Outsideof confession,pastors, big men, and other leaders highlight problems of desire in haranguinglectures (wengkem) n which they tell people to watch out for the troublethat theireyes and mouths (both organs of desire) get them into.


12/19

CHRISTIANITY ND DESIREAMONGTHE URAPMIN 309The symbolismsurroundingyes andmouths,which the Urapmin onstantlydeploy, is yet anotherarena in which the Urapmindevelop their ideas aboutwillfilness. Mouthsbothconsumewhat is desiredand,more importantly, xpressdesiresandmake hemsociallyreal in speech.Eyes areeven moreproblematic,orit is what heeyes see that he will wants.Gc)od eople say the Urapmin, eeptheireyes on the road when they are awayfrom their village, iest they should see apotentialsexualpartneror a ripe tarothat might leadtllem into desire and sin.Domesticpigs thatcontinuallymisbehave,umping ver the fencesthatshouldholdthem(kirapim anis, a phrase hatalso refers o human inning),havetheireyes putout. Given he identificationf domesticpigs andhuman eings n Urapminulture,it is hardnotto see this severediscipline s an expression f how deeplyhuman yesare implicated n the problemsof humanwillfulness.Furthermorehere are also

idioms hatconjoinboth he oralandocularaspectsof desire.Tc) ovetor wantbadlyin Urapmins to 4'steal ndconsumewithyoureyesX tEin awt inin). Whenpeoplesee withtheireyes things hat hey intensely esire, heysay that hey aswallow heirspitv(mokinin)^These idiomsare regularly sed bv leadersandothersand conveya very visceral sense that onews wn and othersS esiresare ln need of constantdetinition ndcontrol.Intellingpeople o watch helrmouths ndcontrol heireyesleadersdrawon the powerof these idiomsto reinforce heir incessantpleas thatpeopleset their own desiresasideand obeyonly the will of God.Anotheraspect of this Christian iscourseon desireconcerns he emotions c)which desireleads. The UrapminSs notedearlier,see anger, envyS ealousy, andshameas emotions hatare ightly inked o desire.In thetraditionalmodelof desire,emotions, particularly nger,were bothwelcomed and feared;that is, Urapminexpressed hesameambivalenceoward hem hat heyexpressedowarddesire tself.In Christianermsnhoweverzall of the emotions hat are linked o desire have anunambiguouslyegativevalence.6Regulardiscussionof tlle need to controltheseemotions ormsanother spectof the discourse f desire n contemporary rapmln.The problematizationf desire by the two Christianmodels has also led to asituation n whichthe Urapmin avecometo see themselves s sinners.In part, hisfollows fromthe way a re-evaluationf the traditionalmodel of desirehas failed oproducea new model of social structurehat wouldallow the Urapmin o forgoputting heirtraditional ocialstructurento practice. t will be recalled hat in thetraditionalmodel of social structureacts of willfulnessinitiate important ocialrelations but once initiated,relationscarrytheir own expectatlons f lawSillnesswhich constrainwillfillness.This model has changedlittle in lts operation,asUrapmin ocial structuretself remainsmuch he sameandstill requireshe exerciseof individualwills to give it shape. As notedabove, life under this traditionalmodelteven without the influence of the two Christian models, was not without itsfrustrations.Acts of willfulnessSwhile necessaryfor thecreation of sociality are alsoprone to leadto anger envy and chargesof unlawful hehavior. This is still the case.But in their Christian understanding, he Urapmin have come to see the anger andjealousy thatof necessity accompanya life lived balancingwillfillness and lawfulness


13/19

3 10 ETHNOLOGYas sins that are damningto the individual and the community. Hence, the normalcosts of doing the business of social life have under Christianitycome to seemruinouslyhigh.To this systemic taailurenn which the normalfunctioningof the social structuremakes sinners of those wllo inhabit it, are added the difficulties to self-creationpresentedby the natureof the Christianmoral code the Urapminhave adopted.Thiscode holds thatall prohibitionson exercisingone's desire in regardto a speciflc item(e.g., a kind of food a piece of land) i.e., prohibitions that take the form oftaboos-are illegitimate. At the sametime, this code definesdesire in general and themereexperience of the emotions attached o it as evil. A moral code of specific rulesthat one could successfillly follow is condemned,while at the sametime a broadcodewhich is largely impossible to follow is promoted. In place of the filnelywoven netof taboos in which they could securely wrap their moral selvesz the Urapminnowhave only a verv broad net of rules throughwhose huge gaps they continuallyfall.By leaving only unobservablerules in place. the Chrlstiancode has made sinners ofall Urapmin.7

CurrentUrapminthinking aboutdesire is thus beset by contradictions.Willfulaction is now expectedwhere taboos once definedthe law, and a certainmeasure ofwillfblness remains necessary to establish social relations. Yet Urapmin nowunderstandall desire and williFulnesso be sinful and to leadultimatelyto damnation.The next section discusses how some of these contradictory deas are expressed and[Q some extent worked through n a contemporary eligiouspractice he Urapmincallzspirit disco' (spirit disko).

DESIRE AND RITUAL IN CONTEMPORARYURAPMINSome of the ritual means the Urapminusedto settle the problemsthat arose whenthe contradictions n theirtraditional elationof desire to lawfulnessfound expressionill disputes, fights and dangerous fits of anger continue to exist in their originalform. The Urapmin still buy each other's angerand shameand undertakeequivalentexchanges to end disputes. Other rituals have persisted in modified form: anger-

removal rituals, for example, now center on prayers in which participantsask Godto take their angerfrom them. But the Urapminhave also developed a set of whollynovel (for them)ritualsthatturn on their perceptlonof themselvesas sinners, foreverviolating their Christianmoral codes. In the absence of a system of taboos thattheycan successfully follow, participation in these rituals has become the paramountlawful practice in Urapmin culture.8These rituals range from participation in church services to embarking withtraveling evangelical ;;teams" hat go to neighboringcommunitiesto astrengthenXtheir churches. In tact, any activitythat expressly follows the will of God can cometo constltute such a ritual. But withinthis category of ritualsdesignedto control theW1119 none are more important han those connectedwith confession Of these thetwo most importantare private confession and the spirit disco. The tWO are tightly


14/19

CHRISTIANITYND DESIREAMONGTHE URAPMIN 311linked. While privateconfession s the basis of lawfulpersonhood, t is successfulpossessionduringa spiritdiscothatprovides ndividuals ith he proof hat heyhaveachieved uch personhood.Spiritdiscos are grouppossessiondaneeswhichUrapminhold in their churchbuildings.Male and femaledancersbegin by jumpingup and down and moving na circle to the rhythmof Christian ongs sung by women. This stage of theproceedings s ealled zpullingthe tHoly] spiritn (pulimspirit). Eventually, n asuccessful piritdisco, somepeoplewill "getthe spiritb kisim spirit)and begintoshakeandflail violently,careening round he dance loorwithout egard or othersor for the circularpattern f the dancing.Eachnew possession1sgreetedwithcelehratory hoops rom he crowdas a fewpeople quicklymove in to control he possessed,allowing hem to move mostly asthey will but struggling o keepthem romcrashing ntoothersor intothe walls. Asthe Holy Spirit lghts witha possessedpersonSs ins, however, he violence of thisconflicthurls he possessedaboutwith a strengthhathisor her handlers annot ullyconstrain.Once severalpeoplebecomepossessed,bodiesfly wildly andpeople getbumped ndbanged.Large lats of the churchSs ark loorbreakunder he dancers'poundingand the possessedisstompingand flailing and deaconsand otherswhonotice the pointedshardshurl them out of the church'sopen windows. The floorincreasingly apeswith openpatches n whichpeoplecan rip.The feelingof intenseenergy hatpervades he dance s thus accompaniedy an equally trongawarenessof physicaldanger.Afteran houror more of possesslon,a personwill 61nallyosethe spiritandcollapse, impandradianton what s leftof the church loor. Oncenoone is any longerpossessed, he singingstops and witha prayer.andperhaps vena Bible readingand a sermon f it is still earlyS he spiritdisco ends.The link betweenthe spirit disco and confession s obvious to the Urapmin.People must go to private onfessionwith a pastoror deaconbefore attemptingopullthe spirit.Urapmin nderstandins to exist as something kin o physicalobjectsin the body that make hebody "heavyXilum). Duringconfession,a persongiveshls or her sins to God andasks himtO accept hem. Butthe act of making his giftdoes not by itself removethe physicalmanifestationsf sin from the body. It isduring he period of possession n the spirit disco thatthe Holy Spiritthrowstheconfessedsins out of one's body so that one can once againbe zlightb (fong) (cf.Clark 992:22). On a personal evel, becomingpossessedguaranteeshat one is atleastmomentarilyree of sin, andsuccessfill piritdiscoswheremanypeopleget thespiritare also takenas someindicationhat he Holy Spirithas smiledon the wholecommunity.The flnal dispositionof the possessed, Iyinglimp on the floor, is aparadigmaticmage of the personbeyonddesire andthe sinful willfulnessthat it11 0 ( J , *orlngs n ltStralnvBut suppressed r transcendedesire is not the only theme of the spirit disco.Indeeds artlcularlyoracious esire s alsoevldent n theritual.For one thing,thereare often accusationshat llicit sexualitygoes on in andaround piritdiscos: someclaim that young peoplerun off to the bush while theirelders are engaged n the


15/19

3 12 ETHNOLOGYdance,or thatmen takethe physicalchaos anddarkness f the spiritdisco as anopportunityo touchwomen'sbreastsZAndthougll he Urapmlndo not say thisexplicitly,boththe phys1calcstasyand hefinalcollapseof the possessed ookverysexual(Gardella1985),pointing o the possibility hatillicitphysicaldesirefindsexpressionn theritual tself.Ina secondandmoreprofoundway,desirealsomakesits appearancen the spiritdisco.Theviolent,destructive, nddangerous ehaviorof thepossessed s itselfapicture fwillfulness.Astheir insof willfulness esist heHoly Spirit's efforts to banishthem from their home in the humanbody, thepossessed mash ntoothers,destroyhechurch loor,drag heirhandlerso and ro?andin generalembody he terrorof willfulnessunleashed eforetheysuccumb oexllaustlonWhilethe Urapmin o not call thishehavior ausedby the Holy Spiritin its confllctwiths1nwillful,it is nonetheless reallzationf theirworslfantaslesof a personacting ompietelywithout egard orothers.Thepossessedviolently ashout withoutregard or the relationshipshey havewiththosewho mightbe theirvictims.Thusthespiritdiscoseems,likeChristianitytself,to heightendesireandallow tor tl1eexpressionof willfulnessat the sametime thatit transcendshem.Ultimately,too, the spirit disco echoes the traditionalense that willfulnessisnecessaryand potentevenas it seeksto finallypurgewillfulness n the exhaustionthatfollows its expressiomFor the Urapmin, he spiritdisco is a completelyChristian itual.There isnothingahout t thatstrikes hemas syncretisticthere s no indigenousradition fpossession n IJrapmin)r unorthodox.Lookingat the spirltdisco as a Christiarlritual, t is clearthat n its contradictoryeighteningndcondemnationf desire tmirrorsandattemptso mediate n Urapmin odiestheconflictingmessagesaboutdesirewhichChristianityasset indialogue mong hem.Thespiritdiscoultimatelyendswithoutresolutionorallof those nthemajoritywho donot get possessed,andmanyof themdo seriouslywonder f their ailure o hecomepossessed s a sign (fdamnatioll.Havetheydesired oo muchsor acted oo willfullyon thosedesires? sthiswhytlleFIolySpirithasturnedts hackonthem?Forthosewllowerepossessedand are llOW light they have managedafter a paroxysmof unself-consciousvvilltulnessinally o achievea foretaste f that alvationwhich or Urapmins a statefreeof desire.Incontemporary rapmin,hegoodperson s onewho desiresnothing xcept odo God'swill. The achievementf sucha state ree fromdesire s for themostpartimpossible.hothhecauseof thenature f the Urapminocialstructure ndbecauseof theverylbroadefinition f prohihitedesiresandemotionshat heylahorunder.The spiritdiscoreflects his predicamentvenas it allowsa glimpseof whatsuccessin the questtor moralpersonhoodwouldlook like; thatstrikingcombination fpassivityandsatiationhav haracterizeshelimpandheamingpostpossessionersoncollapsed0n thechurch loor.In conclusion.we have o askwhatkindof future heUrapmin retrying o createonthe hasisof thismodelof themoralpersonandhisor herrelation o theexperience f desire.


16/19


17/19

3 14 ETHNOLOGYThese are starkly differentpictures. Burridge Lawrences and those who 11ave

built on their insights in elaborating he anthropologicalnotion of the cargo cult areprobablyright to say thatcargo cultists imaginethat on thatbright morning they willagain feel themselves swell with a sense of potency and equivalencethat the colonialand postcolonialworld has stripped rom them. The Urapmin,thoughsseem humbledbeyond such grand hopes Perhaps we can say that via Christianity they havelnternalized all the problems of their contemporaryworld and made them personalratherthan political, that they confuse living on the postcolonial per1pheryof theworld-system in difElcult imes wlth living ln sin. In any cases their hope 1snot forthe fulElllmentof their desires but only for the dominationof them in pursuit of anew person for whom the issue is not satiationbut a salvationbeyond wanting.NOTES

1. This article was originallypresented at the 1994 annualmeeting of the American AnthropologicalAssociation. It is based on field research conductedfromJanuary1991 to February1993 supportedbythe Wenner-GrenFoundation (Grant5026), the NationalScience Foundation,and the University ofVirginia. l thanli KarenBrison.Stephen Leavitt,LeonardPlotmcov,and RupertStasch for particularlydetailed commentson earlier drafts. SandraBamford,JohnBarker,FredDamon, Dan Jorgensen,BruceKoplin, Bruce Knauft, Susan McKinnon, Rebecca Popenoe, Margo Smith, and Roy Wagner alsoprovided helpful comments on all or part of earlier versions. I thankthem all while reserving finalresponsibilityfor myself.2. I owe this point and much of the previous paragraphto very helpful comments John Barkerprovided on an earlier draft.3. In this article terms in the Urapmin anguageare given in italics while those in Neo-Melanesian(Tok Pisin), the most prevalent lingua franca in Papua New Guinea and the language of much ofUrapminChristianity,are underlined.4. Inmany partsof Papua New Guinea, andamong the Urapmin'sTelefomin neighborsin particularthe custom of following the desire of the woman ( bilong merl) in marrlageis assoc1atedwith thecoming of the colonial government(Jorgensen1993:68). The Urapmin,lbycontrast,consider this oneof the1r ong-standing cusloms and the elaborate ritualthat surrounds t along with the way it E1guresin the1rrecountingof genealogies and marital histories suggest no reason to doubtthat.5. In Urapminat least this represents he dark side of the process of creating relationsout of relationsthat has been a focus of recent theoreticalaccounts of Melanesiansociality (Wagner 1977; Strathern1988).6. Shame is a partialexception, but not in any way thatcontradicts he point being developed here.7. It is importantto point out how this analysis of Urapmin problems with desire differs from apsychological one. Hollan (1988:285) reportsthat the Torajans of Indonesia are "ambivalent"aboutChristianity'smodel of sin and punishmentbecause it has compromised"the degree of Eltbetween . .institutionsand the personal needs and concerns of individualactors.' My argument is that thepersonal needs and concerns of the Urapmm (whateverthey might be) are of necessity always caughtup ln the cultural contradictions hat hold between tlle several models of desire and the understandingof social structurewith which they must work; such needs and concerns cannotbe deEmedapart fromthese collective representations hat shape them. Perhapsthis is why a situationof change thatmakesthe Torajans ambivalentabout Christianity eaves the Urapminambivalentaboutthemselves.8. Hollan (1988:284) describes the "dis-ease"that beset the convertedTorajawhen they abandonedtheir traditionalexpiationritualswithout developing Christianreplacements.


18/19

CHRISTIANITYND DESIREAMONGTHEURAPMIN 315BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bercovitch, E. 1994. The Agent in the Gift: Hidden Exchange in Inner New Guinea. CulturalAnthropology9(4):498-536Biersacli, A. 1980. The Hidden God: Communication, Cosmology, and Cybernetics among aMelanesianPeople. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.Brison, K. 1991^Community and Prosperity:Social Movements among the Kwanga of Papua NewGuinea. The ContemporaryPacific 3(2):325-55.1995. Changing Constructionsof NIasculinitym a Sepik SocietyOEthnology 34(3):155-75.Burridge, K. 1960. Mambu: A Study of MelanesianCargoMovementsand theirSocial and IdeologicalBackground.New York.1969. New Heaven, New Earth:A Study of MillenarianActivities. New York.1975. The Melanesian Manager. Studies in Social Anthropology, eds. J. Beattie and R.Lienhardt,pp. 86-104. Oxford.

Clark,J. 1992. Madnessand Colonisation:The Embodimentof Power in Pangia. Oceania 63(1):15-26.Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality: Volume I: An Introduction,transl. R. Hurley. NewYork.

Gardella,P. 1985. InnocentEcstasy: How ChristianityGave Americaan Ethicof Sexual Pleasure. NewYork.Gibbs, P. J. 1977. Tlle Cult from Lyeimi and the Ipili. Oceania 48(1):1-25.Guiart,J. 1970. The MillenarianAspect of Conversionto Chrlstiamtym the South Pacific. Millennial

Dreams in Action: Studiesin RevolutionaryReligious Movements, ed. S. L. Thrupp,pp. 122-38. New York.Harrison,S. 1985. Concepts of the Person in Avatip Religious Thought. Man (n.s.) 20(1):115-30.Hollan, D. 1988. Pockets Full of Mistakes: The Personal Consequences of Religious Change in a

Toraja Village. Oceania58(4):275-89.Jorgensen, D 1981. Taro and Arrows: Order, Entropy, and Religion among the Telefolmin. Ph.D.thesist University of British ColumbiaOVancouvere1993. Money and NIarriagen Telefomm:FromSister Exchangeto Daughteras Trade Store.The Business of Marriage: Transformations n Oceanic Matrimony, ed. R. Marksbury,pp.57-82. Pittsburgh.

Kaplan, M. 1995. Neither Cargo Nor Cult: Ritual Politics and the Colonial Imagination in Fiji.Durham.

Kempf, W. 1992. "The Second Coming of the Lord": Early Christianization,Episodic Time, and theCulturalConstructionof Continuity n Sibog. Oceania 63(1):72-86.Kulick, D. 1992. Language Shift and CulturalReproduction:Socialization,Self, and Syncretism in aPapua New GuineaVillage. New York.Lattas, A. 1992. Introduction. Hysteria, Anthropological Discourse and the Concept of the Uncon-scious: Cargo Cults and the Scientisation of Race and Colonial Power. Oceania63(1):1-14.Lawrence, P 1971 (1964). Road Belong Cargo: A Study of the Cargo Movement in the Southern

Madang District New Guinea. Atlantic Highlands NJ.Lawrence, P.9 and M. J. Meggitt. 1965. Introduction. Gods Ghosts and Men in Melanesia: SomeRellgions of AustralianNew Gumea and the New Hebrides, eds. P. Lawrence and M. J.Meggitt, pp. 1-26. Melbourne.Leroy, J. D. 1979. The CeremonialPig Kill of the South Kewa. Oceania 49(3):179-209.Lindstrom,L. 1993. Cargo Cult: Strange Stories of Desire from Melanesia and Beyond. Honolulu.McDowell, N. 1988. A Note on Cargo Cults and CulturalConstructionsof Change. PaciElcStudies11(2): 121-34.Munn, N. 1986. The Fame of Gawa: A Symbolic Study of Value Transformationn a Massim (PapuaNew Guinea) Society. Cambridge.Pitt-Rivers,J. A. 1971. The People of the Sierra. Chicago.


19/19

316 ETHNOLOGYRead, K. E. 1959. Leadershipand Consensus in a New Guinea Society. American Anthropologist61 (3):425-36.Robbins, J. 1987. Keepingto Oneself in Melanesia:Secrecy, Not-Reciprocity,and CulturalTheory.

Paperpresentedat the annual meeting of the AmerlcanAnthropologlcalAssociation.1994. Equalityas a Value: Ideology in Dumont, Melanesiaand the West Social Analysis36:21-70.1995. Dispossesslng the Spirits: ChristianTransformatlons f Desire and Ecology among theUrapminof PapuaNew Guinea. Ethnology34(3):211-24.1996. Between Apology and Compensation:Equivalent Exchange as Ritual Reconciliationamong the Urapmin of Papua New Guinea. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of theAssociation for Social Anthropologyin Oceania.1997. When Do You Think the World Will End? Globalization,Apocalypticism, and theMoral Perils of Fieldworkin "Last New Guinea." Anthropologyand Humanism22(1):6-30.In Press. On Reading "WorldNews": Apecalyptic Narrative, Negative Nationalism, andTransnationalChristianity n a PapuaNew GuineaSoclety. Social Analysis.Ryan D. 1969. Christianity,CargoCultsSand Politics amongthe Toaripiof Papua.Oceania40(2):99-118^

Smith, M. F. 1994. Hard Times on Kainru Island: Poverty, Developmenlt,and Moralityin a PapuaNew Guinea Village. Honolulu.Strathern,M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in

Melanesia. Berkeley.Swatridge, C. 1985. Delivering the Goods: Educationas Cargo in PapuaNew Guinea. Manchester.Wagner, R. 1977. Analogic Kinship:A Daribi Example.AmericanEthnologist4(4):623-42.Walter, M. A. H. B. 1981. Cult Movement, and CommunityDevelopmentAssociations: Revolutionand Evolution m the Papua New Guinea Countryside.Road Belong Development: Cargo

Cults, Community Groups and Self-Help Movements in Papua New Gumea, eds. R.Gerritsen,R. May, and A. Walter, pp. 81-105 Canberra.White, G M 1980. Social Imagesand Social Change in a MelanesianSociety. American Ethnologist7(2):352-70.Worsley, P 1968 The TrumpetShall Svund: A Study of ; C a r o Cults m Melanesla New Yvrk.

Young M. W. 1983. Magicians of Manumanua:Livmg Myth in Kalauna.Berkeley.

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	martijn-de-koning
View:	222 times
Download:	3 times

Becoming Sinners

Documents