The Trobriand Islands

The Trobriand Islands of Papua New Guinea have been a key site of anthropological study for over a century. Trobrianders were first made famous by Bronislaw Malinowski in the early twentieth century, and were studied further by anthropologists such as Annette Weiner. Katherine Lepani’s ethnography, Islands of Love, Islands of Risk: Culture and HIV in the Trobriands, provides a modern analysis of HIV in the cultural context of the Trobriand Islands. Lepani sought to display HIV in the Trobriands as both a physical illness and a symbolic epidemic of meaning. She set out to inform fellow anthropologists and laypersons about the ways in which cultural knowledge informs meaning. However, in attempting to prove this, Lepani overemphasized her Trobriand
ties and overlooked her Australian descent in an effort to assert ethnographic authority. By analyzing Lepani’s Islands of Love, Islands of Risk, a comprehensive understanding of her authorial voice, and the negative impact it had on her work, will be attained.
In order to fully understand Lepani’s ethnography, a brief characterization of the history of anthropological study in the Trobriand Islands is essential. The two most notable anthropologists to have studied in the Trobriands were Bronislaw Malinowski and Annette Weiner. A pioneer for anthropological fieldwork, Malinowski lived in the Trobriand Islands for two years during WWI. Lepani acknowledged the impact of Malinowski’s work and the ways in which it “transformed the Papuan society of the Trobriand Islands into a resource with which to think through and analyze problems common to peoples throughout the world” (Hirsch, Lepani, 14). Malinowski popularized “full immersion” anthropology, whereby an anthropologist would become an active participant in the culture he/she was studying (Langness). Malinowski’s work would set a new standard for anthropological study, inspiring anthropologists such as Annette Weiner to study the Trobriands. Upon arriving in the Trobriands, Weiner found a plethora of women’s practices that were vital to Trobriand life which had been underreported in the past. As a postmodernist, Weiner found that vastly different theories about the same topic could be made based upon the anthropologist (Layton). Weiner acknowledged this, stating, “my most significant point of departure from Malinowski’s analyses was the attention I gave to women’s work” (Weiner, 5). Similar to Lepani, Weiner focused on gender roles and sexual practices in the islands, and was the first anthropologist in the region to do so. Clearly influenced by these anthropologists, Lepani acknowledges, “the works of Malinowski and Weiner provide descriptive foundations and major points of reference for my ethnographic exploration” (Lepani, 14). Building off of Malinowski and Weiner’s works, Lepani emerged in the field of anthropology just as the HIV/AIDS epidemic began to exert its full reach.
Although the Trobriand Islands had been visited and studied by outsiders for over a century, Trobriand culture and cultural practices had remained predominantly unchanged.
However, this would change as HIV/AIDS reached the islands in the late twentieth century and was spread amongst the Trobriand people. Lepani saw a unique opportunity to document the ways in which Trobriands understood and dealt with HIV in their own cultural context. On the purpose of her ethnography, Lepani notes, “I [sought to] consider how cultural knowledge is used to make sense of this novel and transforming phenomenon [HIV]” (Lepani, 10). Essentially, through a case study of HIV in the Trobriands, Lepani hoped to inform anthropologists and laypersons alike as to the ways in which culture informs knowledge. Lepani attempted to achieve this informative and analytical purpose through a study of Trobriand sexual practices. The Trobriand life stage of kubukwabuya refers to the “autonomy to act on desire, to attract the desire of others, and to engage freely in sexual liaisons in the question for a compatible marriage partner” (Lepani, 102). Indeed, Trobriands were widely known for their open sexual practices, as adolescents would often have upwards of twenty sexual partners before marrying (Lepani). In order to attract mates, Trobriand boys would use kaimwasila, attraction magic, and kwaiwaga, love magic. Trobrianders were aware of two kinds of sexually transmitted diseases, pokesa and sovasova (Lepani).
Pokesa, or “pox” were defined as external diseases resulting from improper sex, whereas sovasova was a disease resulting from incest, or the mixing of same-clan sexual fluids. In attempting to educate Trobriand villagers about HIV, medics would conflate HIV with sovasova, as they were both sexually transmitted diseases with no visible symptoms. Lepani clarifies, “representations of both sovasova and HIV are conceptually associated with behavior that deviates from normative moral and sexual codes” (Lepani, 143). While this comparison may have been useful, HIV and sovasova were completely different diseases. For example, sovasova would only affect those who mixed same-clan sexual fluids, while HIV could be spread by the exchange of any sexual fluids, regardless of clan orientation. This confusion caused many Trobriands to view HIV as a distinctly Western illness, associating the disease with typical tourist destinations such as ports and larger towns. As a result, Trobriands found themselves juggling the fear of being infected with the desire to continue practicing their sexually free culture. Lepani attempted to analyze HIV as both a physical and symbolic illness through the lens of a symbolic anthropologist and a self-declared authority on Trobriand peoples.
Symbolic anthropology was popularized in the later twentieth century by anthropologists such as Clifford Geertz. As a mode of anthropological study, symbolic anthropology sought to understand culture through the analysis of symbols (Langness). Commonly, symbolic anthropologists would employ thick description in order to extract meaning from cultural practices. Geertz defines this practice as, “carefully analyzing ethnographic detail, breaking it down further and further to get at the meaning of it for the members of the culture” (Langness, 202). Lepani employed thick description throughout her ethnography, attempting to understand cultural implications of HIV on the Trobriands at the individual and group level. In this regard, Lepani’s focus the individual and the group was comparable to Malinowski’s pure functionalist approach to anthropology (Langness). Similar to Malinowski, Lepani was “always attempting to correlate one set of activities with the whole” (Langness, 99). In order to depict these implications and assert her authorial voice, Lepani utilized a unique set of research methods. Lepani employed an emic approach to her research, recording the words and perspectives of Trobriand people as an “insider” from within the social group. Through this method, Lepani attempts to speak from the perspective of the Trobriand Islanders as they situate HIV within their cultural context. Lepani also uses the present tense throughout her book as a way to depict the “context and lived experience” of Trobriand people (Lepani, 13). However, as she herself notes, the use of the present tense can be criticized for “falsely conveying a sense of cultural timelessness, stasis, and internal coherence” (Lepani, 13). Lepani’s emic approach and analytical style relies heavily on the assumption that she is a legitimate member of Trobriand society. Lepani fails to fully recognize her implicit biases as an outsider and the weaknesses of her analytical style, which significantly diminishes the validity of her work.
The legitimacy of an ethnography relies heavily on the researcher’s authorial voice. If an anthropologist’s reliability as a source can be questioned, their research and work as a whole can be subject to doubt as well. This idea was best captured by Geertz, who posited that in order to be a convincing “I-Witness”, one must become a convincing “I”. In attempting to accomplish this, Lepani employed a total immersion approach to her studies, emphasizing “the value of connections to place, and the social relations that make these connections apparent”, as the source of her credibility (Lepani, 43). As the wife of a Trobriand chief and a longtime resident of the islands, Lepani assumes the expertise of a born-and-raised Trobriand Islander. Yet, Lepani was born and raised in Australia. Geertz notes the essentiality of recognizing the ways in which anthropologists are “sailing at once in several seas”, with bias both as an objective outsider and as a subjective insider (Geertz, 77). Lepani struggles with this notion, choosing to focus explicitly on her Trobriand ties as a way to assert authority. She mentions these ties throughout her ethnography, “’Mi marit long Trobs’ (I am married to the Trobriands) is how I avow my status…situating myself and asserting my identity in the social landscape of belonging” (Lepani, 43). Evidently, Lepani sought to present herself as belonging within and amongst the Trobriands. Although these ties are legitimate, her position as an outsider cannot be overlooked. There are various ways in which Lepani’s failure to recognize her bias diminishes the validity of her ethnography. In Islands of Love, Islands of Risk, Lepani primarily utilized “group discussions” to understand Trobriand sexual practices and how they were affected by HIV.
In fact, Lepani consistently utilized quotes from Trobriand men and women to prove a certain point. These “group discussions” provide the most consistent examples of the ways in which Lepani’s bias negatively affected her work. Rather than bolstering her authorial voice, these group discussions further emphasized Lepani’s place as an outsider. For example, when questioning a group of women on Trobriand sexual practices, Lepani was met with giggles and discomfort as one woman introduced kwaiwaga, or love magic, to Lepani (Lepani, 108). The group was clearly hesitant to share with Lepani, whether it was because of her status as a chief’s wife or as an Australian outsider. In fact, despite the sexual freedom of Trobriand adolescents, sex was rarely openly discussed in Trobriand society (Weiner, 65-66). Still, Lepani would use interactions such as the aforementioned and proceed to write pages of conclusive analysis. These conclusions are clearly biased, as the men and women in her group discussions may not have felt comfortable sharing their culture with Lepani due to her status, sex, and position as an outsider. While there would be no way for Lepani to remove these implicit biases, she does little to recognize their existence. As a result, Lepani’s ethnography must be read with extreme care, as the definitions she
provides and conclusions she draws may provide inaccurate representations of Trobriand reality.