Americans in Paradise: Anthropologists, Custom, and Democracy in Postwar Micronesia

Abstract

The historic relationship between anthropology and colonialism has been well established, particularly for British anthropologists working in Africa (Asad 1976; Kuper 1983; Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983) and for American anthropologists working in North America (Hallowell 1960; Stocking 1968). As Asad (1973) has pointed out, anthropology as a discipline was born and flourished in the colonial era, a context of unequal power relationships between the West and the Third World. Anthropological studies have traditionally been conducted on colonized peoples by and for the more powerful Europeans. Recent re-examinations of the role of anthropologists in colonial encounters have become central to discussions in diverse forums, ranging from postmodern critical reflections on the process of othering (e.g., Clifford and Marcus 1986; Clifford 1988; Marcus and Fischer 1986; Geertz 1988), to statements on ethics and debates within the field of applied anthropology (e.g., Rynkiewich and Spradley 1976; Cassell and Jacobs 1987). The case of American anthropologists' involvement in the colonial administration of Micronesia is unusual in several ways. First is its relative lateness. Initiated at the close of World War II, this was a time when American anthropology had already been well established as a discipline. The Boasian paradigm stressing the need for objective, professional fieldwork and the principle of cultural relativity was firmly in place. The postwar period was also a time when many other colonized nations were beginning to achieve their independence from colonial powers and were themselves beginning to challenge the relationship between anthropology and colonialism. The American postwar acquisition of Micronesia, a territory consisting of more than 2,000 islands in an area equal in size to the continental United States, makes this one of the latest, largest, and longest-held colonial acquisitions in the modern world. (Belau voted to end this relationship only in 1993.) It also makes the United States the world's largest remaining overseas territorial power. Second, the Micronesian case is distinctive in terms of the numbers of researchers involved. Indeed, more American anthropologists are estimated to have studied Micronesia during the wartime-postwar era than any other area of the world in the history of the discipline. The number of anthropologists involved takes on additional significance when it is recognized that they were among the few civilians allowed entrance into Micronesia by the United States government during the early postwar period. Finally, most anthropological efforts were directly instigated and sponsored by the United States government. Although academic freedom was generally assured to researchers, nonetheless many research topics funded were those regarded as important by the government, and it was often expected that practical results would be communicated in ways that would benefit the administration. Furthermore, during the later Interior administration of the Trust Territory, staff and district anthropologists were hired in an explicitly advisory capacity for the administration of Micronesia. This article critically examines the role of American anthropologists in this colonial encounter in Micronesia. It investigates the question of the use of anthropology in advancing the American colonial agenda (Feinberg 1994), but moves away from the simplistic assumption that anthropology was a reflection of, or handmaiden for, the colonial regime (Asad 1973). The issue is not nearly as simple as it might at first seem. The results of a recent Wenner-Gren symposium point out that colonialism was never monolithic or omnipotent (Cooper and Stoler 1990). Rather, there were competing agendas, strategies, and doubts among colonizers and between them and the colonized. This ongoing dialectic shows colonization to be a problematic, contested, and continually changing process (e.g., Comaroff 1990). …