Patrick Kaiku

Directed Reading and Research- PACS 699

Fall 2010

Title: “The Melanesian Way and Wantokism – The Face of Nation-building In

Melanesia

Selected Readings:

 Brigg, Morgan (2009) ‘Wantokism and state building in Solomon Islands: A response

to Fukuyama’, Pacific Economic Bulletin, Volume 24, Number 3, pp. 148-161.

 Narokobi, Bernard (1983) The Melanesian Way, Institute of Papua New Guinea

Studies: Boroko, Papua New Guinea

 Stella, Tove Regis (2004) ‘Cross tribal boundaries: Wantokism as a discourse of

mobilization and resistance in Papua New Guinea’, Wanpisin, Volume 1, Number 1,

pp. 61-78

Key Words:

Melanesian Way, Tok Pisin, Wantok, Melanesia, Cosmos, nation-building, resistance,

colonialism

Aiding the process of writing this reflection paper, I framed the above title with the intention

of limiting the discussion to the two central themes in the readings – the Melanesian Way and

wantokism. This said I begin the paper by attempting arbitrary definitions of the Melanesian

1
Way and wantokism. My first impression within the context of contemporary Melanesia is

that the application of wantokism facilitates a greater awareness of the Melanesian Way. I

will discuss this in the subsequent sections of the paper. In an attempt to understand the

Melanesian Way and wantokism, I will rely solely on the three articles.

The second part of this paper will present a summary of the main arguments in Narokobi’s,

Stella’s and Brigg’s articles. The three writers are reacting to agendas deeply rooted in the

colonial experience and the process of decolonization (still inconclusive in New Caledonia

and West Papua) in Melanesia. The use of the Melanesian Way for instance is an intellectual

construct, one which seeks to give meaning to the peoples of Melanesia who were subjected

to some of the most denigrating aspects of imperialism (‘Inferiority complex outsiders:

dominance is harmful’, pp. 57-59). Understood broadly, the Melanesian Way and wantokism

are symbolic forms of resistance, deployed to contest ingrained stereotypical

misrepresentations of Melanesians.

The Melanesian Way and wantokism are also restorative in intentions; bringing to the fore an

appreciation of indigenous Melanesian institutions and values and their place in the

contemporary setting. In concluding this reflection paper, I bring the discussion to an end by

attempting to relate the common themes in the three articles.

Concepts and definitions

 The Melanesian Way

2
The root word being “Melanesia”, Bernard Narokobi defines this sub-region of the Pacific as

comprising “West PNG [now West Papua], Papua New Guinea and her outer islands, the

Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and Fiji” (p.4). Except for West Papua and New

Caledonia (Kanaky), the rest are politically independent. Bernard Narokobi went even

further, invoking the age-old racial marker, where Melanesia is “inhabited by people who are

of neither Asian nor European stock. At the same time we are not African nor Polynesian,

even though we have people of lighter complexion” (p.4).

Though he speaks of Melanesia, Narokobi predominantly uses his country (Papua New

Guinea) as a reference point throughout his discussions. I would be interested to understand

how this would appeal to a ni-Vanuatu, a Solomon Islander, a Fijian and so forth. If Papua

New Guinean critics of Bernard Narokobi have argued about the absence of any semblance of

the Melanesian Way in the “language” of the grassroots in Papua New Guinea, it will be an

interesting exercise trying to ascertain if Narokobi’s definition of the Melanesian Way has

cross-cultural or cross-national appeal to Melanesian audiences outside of Papua New

Guinea.

On the racial connotation of being Melanesian, Narokobi is here excluding on the basis of

race. And some of his critics have been quick to label him a racist upon reading this apparent

exclusionist stance. Narokobi seems to be contradicting himself. Though he characterises

Melanesia on the basis of “complexion”, he simultaneously preaches about the dynamism of

culture (and identity) in a contemporary Melanesian context. The changing face of Melanesia,

now part of a global and regional community sets in motion new layers of identities as

peoples (from other races) come into contact with Melanesians, acquiring affiliations with the

3
region. In Melanesia, race seems to dissipate when one considers the associative nature of

wantokism (see articles by Stella [2004] and Brigg [2009]).

From the Melanesian sub-region of the Pacific then, Bernard Narokobi tries to bring some

sense of order in a chaotic cosmos of traits purportedly shared by the seemingly diverse

communities in this part of the Pacific. He does this whilst including almost all aspects of

what he sees as constituting the cosmic realities of Melanesia. Rightfully, Narokobi admits

that the Melanesian Way is one that lacks a specific meaning and “to seek a definition of the

Melanesian Way is to seek to qualify and build the outer and inner walls of the Melanesian

Way of life” (p.x).

Nevertheless, Narokobi creates the parameters of the Melanesian Way, describing broadly

what he thinks should be the broad outlines of an on-going process, where Melanesians are

urged to pick-and-choose. In pages 6-9 of The Melanesian Way (1983), one comes up with

the broad features of the Melanesian Way. I summarise the themes as follows:

1. “Peaceful, non-violent, person to person way in which” conflict is resolved

2. The claim of being “an ancient people, born to liberty, born to ancient culture and

civilization”

3. On being “a spiritual people” with the knowledge of “forces greater than ourselves”

and from this “spirituality, we had a communal vision of the cosmos”, seeing the

human person in his totality with the spirit world as well as the animal and plant

world”

4. Drawing on previous networks of interactions, serving as a source of inspiration for

the emergent communities created out of the colonial project

4
 5. And the whole idea of being human, devoid of the stigma that colonialism imposed on

people’s dignity and existence

 Wantokism

Regis Tove Stella (2004) defines the wantok concept as one that “could mean a person who

speaks one’s language [wan=same and tok = language] or a group of people speaking the

same language and sharing similar interests and goals based on the principle of reciprocity”

(p. 62). Relationships here are continuously re-imagined and positioned. For instance, “a

wantok may be from someone from the same village, same tribe, same ethnic group, same

district, province and so forth” (Stella, 2004:62). In the context of Papua New Guinea, Regis

Stella notes that:

“The concept wantok and the social reality which birthed it are both as recent in the

history of Papua New Guinea as the lingua franca Tok Pisin in which they are

products of the same material, social and ideological forces, yet deeply entrenched

in the traditions of PNG cultures....It is a kind of safety net, which operates on a

system of relationships, and fellowship where are sense of community and identity

are forged”

Morgan Brigg (2009) in a counterargument to an earlier article by Francis Fukuyama in the

Pacific Economic Bulletin (2008:23(3):1-17) also provides an insightful commentary on the

concept of wantokism. Brigg shows that wantokism, seen in contemporary Solomon Islands

and Melanesia is an “expansive” and not “an atavistic institution”....“tied to a descent group”

(as argued by Fukuyama) (p.152). Indeed, wantokism “is a modern phenomenon that

5
emerged in the colonial era as people were drawn into plantation and administration work”

(p. 152). Wantokism naturally “arose as different tribes with shared language found

commonality and provided support to each other in new settings, at least in part in

juxtaposition to colonial overseers” (p.152). In the case of the Solomon Islands, the Solomon

Islands pijin becomes a rallying identifier for the “wantok” identity (Brigg, 152).

From the above exploration of the terminologies, it is apparent that wantokism and the

Melanesian Way draw from the prevailing values found in Melanesian societies.

Common themes – Wantokism and the Melanesian Way

The three articles address multiple cross-cutting themes. I will only dwell on two of these.

The first is the apparent symbiotic nature of the two concepts – wantokism and the

Melanesian Way. Both stress on human relations and reciprocity, but more fundamentally, a

growing web of relationships beyond the tribal or linguistic affinities (Stella, 2004; Brigg,

2009).

The second theme addresses the issue of nation-building and the potentiality of creating a

pan-Melanesian identity through the deployment of the expansive and inclusive virtues of

wantokism. If “identity” is the rallying call of the Melanesian Way, a national or Melanesian

wantokism is a positive aspect, especially when addressing the challenges of ethnic and

socio-cultural diversity. Brigg (2009: 157-59) shows the potential of wantokism in the case of

6
the Solomon Islands.1 This is possible in contemporary relations where global attention to

recent events in Melanesia engenders the appropriate role of wantokism in nation-building.

So, in my reading of the concepts of the Melanesian Way and wantokism, primarily

relationships determine the responsibilities and obligations of individuals. It becomes clear

that the three commentators agree on wantokism as a social safety net (Narokobi [1983:14],

Stella [2004:72] and Brigg [2009:156]). However, Narokobi limits his definition of wantok to

the extended family, the immediate “village”, “community” and “relatives” (p.14). And

wantokism, is functional in the material up-keep of these units.

Stella (2004) and Brigg (2009) on the other hand highlight the increasingly “fluid” and

expansive function of wantokism, shifting outwards (from the clan to the nation, even

region). Stella (2004) notes the dynamism of wantokism:

“The potentiality of someone to become a wantok of someone else and the fact that

wantokism can be imagined is what makes the notion symbolic. At the same time,

people may perceive themselves as wantoks without necessarily possessing a loyal

consciousness” (p. 67).

Wantokism is affiliation acknowledged for its worth within diaspora communities and in

contact situations or simply through on-going interactions. In Chapter 2 (‘On National

Unity’), Narokobi (1983:18-20) extols the long history of encounters and interactions

amongst peoples of Melanesia, even predating the arrival of Europeans and Asians. So rather

1
Regis Tove Stella (2004) seems to have a pessimistic view on the potential for wantokism in Papua New
Guinea labelling the concept as:
“unexplored and unelaborated. This is partly because of its factional nature and more so because it [wantokism]
is urban-based and therefore does not have its roots deep in the cultural soil. At the same time for Papua New
Guineans the concept of nationhood and unity are moored in small social communities” (p.74).

7
than be treated as societies who were static and inward-looking, Narokobi attempts to dispel

this claims relying on this experiences of traditional Melanesian communities.

He cites examples of the famous Kula Ring expeditions, the Hiri trade and so forth as

positive lessons from the past of extending relationships beyond the tribal boundaries for

reciprocal well-being and sustenance. Stella succinctly captured the theme of Narokobi’s

philosophy: “He [Narokobi] emphasises that the basis of our identity as Melanesians is vested

in our cultural traditions and he urges people to utilise this positively and proactively to forge

a sense of belonging and identity in the region” (p.64). If wantokism is about acquired

identities through the process of interaction and contact or mutual dependence by people’s on

each other, Narokobi’s use of historical interaction is a basis towards the affinity that is

shared by Melanesians. Since Narokobi leaves open his qualification thus: “Culture also must

also change to fit a tradition of a people” (Narokobi, x), surely, wantokism would be an

essential component of the Melanesian Way.

The second theme of the three articles is the potentiality of utilizing the inclusive virtues of

wantokism in addressing lingering matters of national co-existence in diverse Melanesia.

Critics of the wantok system point to its ability to perpetuate the age-old tribal, village and

ethnic solidarities. The claims that wantokism should be “blamed for the lack of national

unity, for law and order problems, for stifling national development, for factional politics

[voting for wantoks], for corruption in politics, among other negative attributes” (Stella, p.62)

is evident in the articles by Stella and Brigg. The latter’s article in fact a response to Francis

Fukyama’s depiction of wantokism as the debilitating factor in the Solomon Islands during

the ethnic tensions of 1998-2003.

8
The criticisms of wantokism are valid for various reasons. One simply needs to look at the

electoral politics of Melanesian countries to find see how deep ethnic and linguistic loyalties

run. However, Melanesian countries, diverse as they are also on the move – migration from

rural areas to towns, the inter-marriages between peoples from different ethnic groups, work

and employment, pursuit of education across provincial and national boundaries, and so forth.

Melanesians are more mobile now than ever before – and increasingly in large numbers.

These contact situations, and the differentiation and commonalities derived through

interactions, the long-lasting bonds through marriage, for instance, and the common goals of

the human communities extend the relationships in never-before layers of identities.

Brigg (2009) talks about “several decades of marriage across tribal and island groups in

modern Solomon Islands” as generating “a dense countrywide web of relationships” (p. 156).

He even suggests that in the conflict of 1998-2003, people “escaped or mitigated violence

through the cross-cutting ties among militants and civilians” (p. 152). Wantokism therefore

creates obligations on each other to observe the well-being of each other across all human-

made boundaries.

Conclusion

In this reflection paper, I suggested that wantokism is one aspect of the Melanesian Way. It

embodies relationship, sharing, reciprocity and caring. Wantokism is expansive nevertheless

and is not confined merely to a tribe, clan or so forth. Two of the articles here by Stella and

Brigg give a thorough discussion of the utility and flexibility of wantokism. In relation to the

Melanesian Way, Narokobi was really insisting upon the “need to embrace one’s cultural

traditions however hybrid this may be...[and in so doing]...at least one retains aspects of one’s

9
traditions in a rapidly changing world (Stella, 2004:65). Although Narokobi stirred up

criticisms from his vocal critics, there is no denying that he started a conversation that has a

noble agenda of finding meaning (individually and collectively) to post-colonial Melanesia.

10