Hard Custom, Hard Dance : Social Organisation, (Un)Differentiation and Notions of Power in a Tabiteuean Community, Southern Kiribati

Hard Custom, Hard Dance: Social Organisation, (Un)Differentiation and Notions of Power in a Tabiteuean Community, Southern Kiribati is an ethnographic study of a village community. This work analyses social organisation on the island of Tabiteuea in the Micronesian state of Kiribati, examining the intertwining of hierarchical and egalitarian traits, meanwhile bringing a new perspective to scholarly discussions of social differentiation by introducing the concept of undifferentiation to describe non-hierarchical social forms and practices. Particular attention is paid to local ideas concerning symbolic power, abstractly understood as the potency for social reproduction, but also examined in one of its forms; authority understood as the right to speak. The workings of social differentiation and undifferentiation in the village are specifically studied in two contexts connected by local notions of power: the meetinghouse institution (te maneaba) and traditional dancing (te mwaie). This dissertation is based on 11 months of anthropological fieldwork in 1999‒2000 in Kiribati and Fiji, with an emphasis on participant observation and the collection of oral tradition (narratives and songs). The questions are approached through three distinct but interrelated topics: (i) A key narrative of the community ‒ the story of an ancestor without descendants ‒ is presented and discussed, along with other narratives. (ii) The Kiribati meetinghouse institution, te maneaba, is considered in terms of oral tradition as well as present-day practices and customs. (iii) Kiribati dancing (te mwaie) is examined through a discussion of competing dance groups, followed by an extended case study of four dance events. In the course of this work the community of close to four hundred inhabitants is depicted as constructed primarily of clans and households, but also of churches, work co-operatives and dance groups, but also as a significant and valued social unit in itself, and a part of the wider island district. In these partly cross-cutting and overlapping social matrices, people are alternatingly organised by the distinct values and logic of differentiation and undifferentiation. At different levels of social integration and in different modes of social and discursive practice, there are heightened moments of differentiation, followed by active undifferentiation. The central notions concerning power and authority to emerge are, firstly, that in order to be valued and utilised, power needs to be controlled. Secondly, power is not allowed to centralize in the hands of one person or group for any long period of time. Thirdly, out of the permanent reach of people, power/authority is always, on the one hand, left outside the factual community and, on the other, vested in community, the social whole. Several forms of differentiation and undifferentiation emerge, but these appear to be systematically related. Social differentiation building on typically Austronesian complementary differences (such as male:female, elder:younger, autochtonous:allotochtonous) is valued, even if eventually restricted, whereas differentiation based on non-complementary differences (such as monetary wealth or level of education) is generally resisted, and/or is subsumed by the complementary distinctions. The concomitant forms of undifferentiation are likewise hierarchically organised. On the level of the society as a whole, undifferentiation means circumscribing and ultimately withholding social hierarchy. Potential hierarchy is both based on a combination of valued complementary differences between social groups and individuals, but also limited by virtue of the undoing of these differences; for example, in the dissolution of seniority (elder-younger) and gender (male-female) into sameness. Like the suspension of hierarchy, undifferentiation as transformation requires the recognition of pre-existing difference and does not mean devaluing the difference. This form of undifferentiation is ultimately encompassed by the first one, as the processes of the differentiation, whether transformed or not, are always halted. Finally, undifferentiation can mean the prevention of non-complementary differences between social groups or individuals. This form of undifferentiation, like the differentiation it works on, takes place on a lower level of societal ideology, as both the differences and their prevention are always encompassed by the complementary differences and their undoing. It is concluded that Southern Kiribati society be seen as a combination of a severely limited and decentralised hierarchy (differentiation) and of a tightly conditional and contextual (intra-category) equality (undifferentiation), and that it is distinctly characterised by an enduring tension between these contradicting social forms and cultural notions. With reference to the local notion of hardness used to characterise custom on this particular island as well as dance in general, it is argued in this work that in this Tabiteuean community some forms of differentiation are valued though strictly delimited or even undone, whereas other forms of differentiation are a perceived as a threat to community, necessitating pre-emptive imposition of undifferentiation. Power, though sought after and displayed - particularly in dancing - must always remain controlled.

From Habits to Social Structures : Pragmatism and Contemporary Social Theory

Pragmatism has sometimes been taken as a catchphrase for epistemological stances in which anything goes. However, other authors argue that the real novelty and contribution of this tradition has to do with its view of action as the context in which all things human take place. Thus, it is action rather than, for example, discourses that should be our starting point in social theory. The introductory section of the book situates pragmatism (especially the ideas of G. H. Mead and John Dewey) within the field and tradition of social theory. This introductory also contextualizes the main core of the book which consists of four chapters. Two of these chapters have been published as articles in scientific journals and one in an edited book. All of them discuss the core problem of social theory: how is action related to social structures (and vice versa)? The argument is that habitual action is the explanation for the emergence of social structures from our action. Action produces structures and social reproduction takes place when action is habitualized; that is, when we develop social dispositions to act in a certain manner in familiar environments. This also means that even though the physical environment is the same for all of us, our habits structure it into different kinds of action possibilities. Each chapter highlights these general insights from different angles. Practice theory has gained momentum in recent years and it has many commonalities with pragmatism because both highlight the situated and corporeal character of human activity. One famous proponent of practice theory is Margaret Archer who has argued that the pragmatism of G. H. Mead leads to an oversocialized conception of selfhood. Mead does indeed present a socialized view of selfhood but this is a meta-sociological argument rather than a substantial sociological claim. Accordingly, one can argue that in this general sense intersubjectivity precedes subjectivity and not the other way around. Such a view does not indicate that our social relation would necessarily "colonize" individual action because there is a place for internal conversations (in Archer s terminology); it is especially in those phases of action where it meets obstacles due to the changes of the environment. The second issue discussed has the background assumption that social structures can fruitfully be conceptualized as institutions. A general classification of different institution theories is presented and it is argued that there is a need for a habitual theory of institutions due to the problems associated with these other theories. So-called habitual institutionalism accounts for institutions in terms of established and prevalent social dispositions that structure our social interactions. The germs of this institution theory can be found in the work of Thorstein Veblen. Since Veblen s times, these ideas have been discussed for example, by the economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson. His ideas on the evolution of institutions are presented but a critical stance is taken towards his tendency of defining institutions with the help of rules because rules are not always present in institutions. Accordingly, habitual action is the most basic but by no means the only aspect of institutional reproduction. The third chapter deals with theme of action and structures in the context of Pierre Bourdieu s thought. Bourdieu s term habitus refers to a system of dispositions which structure social fields. It is argued that habits come close to the concept of habitus in the sense that the latter consists of particular kinds of habits; those that are related to the reproduction of socioeconomic positions. Habits are thus constituents of a general theory of societal reproduction whereas habitus is a systematic combination of socioeconomic habits. The fourth theme relates to issues of social change and development. The capabilities approach has been associated with the name of Amartya Sen, for example, and it underscores problems inhering in economistic ways of evaluating social development. However, Sen s argument has some theoretical problems. For example, his theory cannot adequately confront the problem of relativism. In addition, Sen s discussion lacks also a theory of the role of the public. With the help of arguments derived from pragmatism, one gets an action-based, socially constituted view of freedom in which the role of the public is essential. In general, it is argued that a socially constituted view of agency does not necessarily to lead to pessimistic conclusions about the freedom of action.

Murtuva säätyvalta, kestävä eliitti : Senaattori Lennart Gripenbergin sukupiiri ja sääty-yhteiskunnan muodonmuutos

This study examines the transformation of the society of estates in the Finnish Grand Duchy through the case study of Senator Lennart Gripenberg and his family circle. While national borders and state structures changed, the connections between old ruling elite families remained intact as invisible family networks, ownership relations, economic collaboration and power of military families. These were the cornerstones of trust, which helped to strengthen positions gained in society. Also, these connections often had a central if unperceivable impact on social development and modernization. Broadly speaking, the intergenerational social reproduction made it possible for this network of connections to remain in power and, as an imperceptible factor, also influenced short-term developments in the long run. Decisions which in the short term appeared unproductive, would in the long run produce cumulative immaterial and material capital across generations as long-term investments. Social mobility, then, is a process which clearly takes several generations to become manifest. The study explores long-term strategies of reproducing and transferring the capital accumulated in multinational elite networks. Also, what was the relationship of these strategies to social change? For the representatives of the military estate the nobility and for those men of the highest estates who had benefited from military training, this very education of a technical-military nature was the key to steering, controlling and dealing with the challenges following the industrial breakthrough. The disintegration of the society of estates and the rising educational standards also increased the influence of those professionals previously excluded, which served to intensify competition for positions of power. The family connections highlighted in this study overlapped in many ways, working side by side and in tandem to manage the economic and political life in Finland, Russia and Sweden. The analysis of these ties has opened up a new angle to economic co-operation, for example, as seen in the position of such family networks not only in Finnish, but also Swedish and Russian corporations and in the long historical background of the collaboration. This also highlights in a new way the role of women in transferring the cumulative social capital and as silent business partners. The marriage strategies evident in business life clearly had an impact on the economic life. The collaborative networks which transcended generations, national boundaries and structures also uncover, as far as the elites are concerned, serious problems in comparative studies conducted from purely national premises. As the same influential families and persons in effect held several leading positions in society, the line would blur between public and invisible uses of power. The power networks thus aimed to build monopolies to secure their key positions at the helm. This study therefore examines the roles of Lennart Gripenberg senator, business executive, superintendent of the Department of Industry, factory inspector, and founding member of industrial interest groups as part of the reproduction strategies of the elite. The family and other networks of the powerful leaders of society, distinguished by social, economic and cultural capital, provided a solid backdrop for the so-called old elites in their quest for strategies to reproducing power in a changing world. Crucially, it was easier for the elites to gain expertise to steer the modernization process and thereby secure for the next generation a leading position in society, something that they traditionally, too, had had the greatest interest in.

Population structure and evolution in the ant Plagiolepis pygmaea and its two social parasites Plagiolepis xene and Plagiolepis grassei

Social behaviour affects dispersal of animals and is an important modifier of genetic population structures. The female sex is often philopatric, which maintains coancestry within the breeding groups and promotes cooperative behaviours. This enables also inclusive fitness returns from altruism and explains why some individuals sacrifice personal reproduction for the good of others in social insects such as ants. However, reduced dispersal and population substructuring at the level of colonies may also entail inbreeding, loss of genetic diversity, and vulnerability. In addition, the most vulnerable ants are species that are evolved to parasitize colonies of other ants, and which compromise between abilities to disperse and the efficiency to parasitize the host. On the other hand, certain social organisations of ant colonies may facilitate a species to disperse outside its natural range and become a pest. Altogether, knowledge on genetic structuring of ant populations, as well as the evolution of their life histories can contribute to conservation biology and population management. The aim of this thesis was to investigate population structures and phylogenetic evolution of the ant Plagiolepis pygmaea and its two obligatory, workerless social parasites (inquilines) P. xene and P. grassei with genetic markers and DNA sequence data. The results support the general assumption that populations of inquiline parasites are highly fragmented and genetically vulnerable. Comparison of the two parasites suggests that differences in their relative abundance may follow from their interaction with the host, i.e. how well the species is adapted to reproduce in the host colonies. The results also indicate that the most recent free living ancestor to these two parasite species is their common host. This is considered to provide evidence for the controversial issue of sympatric speciation. Further, given that the level of adaptations to parasitic life history depends on the evolutionary time since the free-living ancestor, the results establish a link between species rarity and its evolutionary age. The populations of the host species P. pygmaea displayed significantly reduced dispersal both among the females (queens) and males, and high levels of inbreeding which may enhance worker altruism. In addition, the queens were found to mate with multiple males. Given the high relatedness between the queens and their mates, this occurs probably for non-genetic reasons, e.g. without benefits associated in genetically more diverse offspring. The results hence caution that the contribution of non-genetic factors to the prevailing mating patterns and genetic population structures should not be underestimated.

Kin selection, social polymorphism, and reproductive allocation in ants

Social groups are common across animal species. The reasons for grouping are straightforward when all individuals gain directly from cooperating. However, the situation becomes more complex when helping entails costs to the personal reproduction of individuals. Kin selection theory has offered a fruitful framework to explain such cooperation by stating that individuals may spread their genes not only through their own reproduction, but also by helping related individuals reproduce. However, kin selection theory also implicitly predicts conflicts when groups consist of non-clonal individuals, i.e. relatedness is less than one. Then, individual interests are not perfectly aligned, and each individual is predicted to favour the propagation of their own genome over others. Social insects provide a solid study system to study the interplay between cooperation and conflict. Breeding systems in social insects range from solitary breeding to eusocial colonies displaying complete division of reproduction between the fertile queen and the sterile worker caste. Within colonies, additional variation is provided by the presence of several reproductive individuals. In many species, the queen mates multiply, which causes the colony to consist of half-sib instead of full-sib offspring. Furthermore, in many species colonies contain multiple breeding queens, which further dilutes relatedness between colony members. Evolutionary biology is thus faced with the challenge to answer why such variation in social structure exists, and what the consequences are on the individual and population level. The main part of this thesis takes on this challenge by investing the dynamics of socially polymorphic ant colonies. The first four chapters investigate the causes and consequences of different social structures, using a combination of field studies, genetic analyses and laboratory experiments. The thesis ends with a theoretical chapter focusing on different social interactions (altruism and spite), and the evolution of harming traits. The main results of the thesis show that social polymorphism has the potential to affect the behaviour and traits of both individuals and colonies. For example, we found that genetic polymorphism may increase the phenotypic variation between individuals in colonies, and that socially polymorphic colonies may show different life history patterns. We also show that colony cohesion may be enhanced even in multiple-queen colonies through patterns of unequal reproduction between queens. However, the thesis also demonstrates that spatial and temporal variation between both populations and environments may affect individual and colony traits, to the degree that results obtained in one place or at one time may not be applicable in other situations. This opens up potential further areas of research to explain these differences.