Bringing Kierkegaard into anthropology: Repetition, absurdity, and curses in Fiji

13 Pages·2014·0.2 MB·English

MATT TOMLINSON
Australian National University
Bringing Kierkegaard into
anthropology:
Repetition, absurdity, and curses in Fiji
A B S T R A C T
A nthropologistshavepaidlittleattentiontotheworkoftheDan-
TheDanishphilosopherSørenKierkegaardofferstwo
ish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813–55). In this article, I
conceptsthatcanstrengthenanthropological
examinetwoconceptshedevelopedthatcanbeespeciallypro-
analysesofChristianity.Thefirstis“repetition,”or
ductivefortheanthropologicalanalysisofChristiandiscourse
theactof“recollectingforward,”whichprovidesa
andpractice:“repetition,”ortheactof“recollectingforward”to
modeloftransformationthatdependsneitheron
reshapeoldthingsintonewones,and“absurdity,”theacceptanceofirre-
deepcontinuitynorondecisivebreak.Thesecondis
solvableparadox.Ibeginbyreviewingtwomodelsoftemporalityinthean-
“absurdity,”thefaithfulbutpainfulacceptanceof
thropologyofChristianity,oneassociatedwiththeworkofFenellaCannell
paradoxasirreducibletologicalresolution,which
andtheotherwiththeworkofJoelRobbins.IsuggestthatKierkegaard’s
challengeseudemonicunderstandingsofChristianity
conceptof“repetition”offersathirdandespeciallyinsightfulperspective
asareligionorientedtowardcomfortand
on Christian ideologies of change. Following that discussion, I examine
satisfaction.Idemonstratetheusefulnessof
FijianMethodistritualsforovercomingcurses,analyzingthemwithinthis
Kierkegaard’sconceptsthroughananalysisof
Kierkegaardianframe.Finally,Iturntotheconceptof“absurdity”tomake
indigenousFijianMethodists’interestinrepeatedly
senseofakeyparadox:Whileitmaybetrue,asMarshallSahlinsasserts,
engagingwithcursesfromancestorsasawayto
thatmanyChristianshavelongcharacterized“lifeasmovementtowards
overcomethem.[Christianity,Methodism,
thosethingsthatmadeonefeelgoodandawayfromthosethingsthathurt”
Kierkegaard,ritual,curses,Fiji]
(1996:415),manycommunities,nonetheless,displaygreatzealinengag-
ingwithapparentlyhurtful,dangerousthingsasafoundationalelementin
theirChristianpractice.Thistendencyis,Iargue,notsimplyamatterof
motivation—bringingthedevilintochurchjustsoyoucankickhimout—
butsomethingmoreperplexingandnotultimatelyreducibletoasystem-
aticlogicthatseparatespleasuresandgainsfrompainsandlosses.
In this article, I have three main goals. The first is to begin to bring
Kierkegaardintodialoguewithculturalanthropologytodiscovernewas-
pectsofrecuperativeritualaction.Thesecondgoalistoillustratemyargu-
mentabovebyexpandingonanethnographicclaimIhavemadeinearlier
publications: namely, that Fijian Methodism generates pervasive and re-
currentsensesoflossevenasitraisesthepossibilityofrecuperationfrom
suchloss.MythirdgoalistouseKierkegaardtoreevaluatetheclaimthat
Christianmodelsofhumanactionareorientedtowardthe“pursuitofhap-
piness” and the avoidance of pain. Christianity is not a single, disarticu-
latedthing,anditmayshapevisionsandactionsthatactivelyseeksuffer-
ingthroughanembraceoffaithasabsurdlycompelling.
AMERICANETHNOLOGIST,Vol.41,No.1,pp.163–175,ISSN0094-0496,online
ISSN1548-1425.(cid:2)C 2014bytheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.Allrightsreserved.
DOI:10.1111/amet.12066
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume41 Number1 February2014
Repetition ilarly,ChristinaTorenobservesthatsomeFijianMethodists
understand conversion as having “revealed the inherent
In Thought and Change (1964), Ernest Gellner identi- Christianity of the Fijian people” (1988:697) rather than
fied three theories of “progress,” two of which have in- having overcome a non-Christian past (see also Kaplan
formedtheworkofleadingtheoristsoftheanthropologyof 1995;Tomlinson2009).
Christianity. The first theory Gellner discusses is one he In contrast, Joel Robbins (2007) has argued that an-
callsthe“episodic,”inwhichprogressisdefinedbyasingle thropologistsneedtotakeseriouslyalternativeclaimsthat
rupture.Thesecondisthe“evolutionist,”inwhichprogress Christianityrupturestheculturalorderandintroducesan
is marked by gradual and interlinked changes. The third, entirely new one (see also Besnier 2011:ch. 8). This reem-
the “neo-episodic,” does both: Like the episodic, it fo- phasis on the episodic is motivated especially by evan-
cuses on a specific moment—the dominant one for Gell- gelicalandPentecostaldescriptionsofradicaltransforma-
nerisindustrialization—andliketheevolutionist,itframes tion. Robbins writes that “anthropology has in large part
progressasacomplexprocessofchange. disregardedChristianitybecauseithasneitherbeeninter-
In the introduction to her influential volume The An- estedinnortheorizeddiscontinuity”(2007:9),andhecrit-
thropologyofChristianity(2006),FenellaCannellobserves icizes the influential work of Jean and John Comaroff for
thatHegel,Weber,Durkheim,andMausseachsawthede- theway“ithasfurtherrefinedthetechniquesbywhichan-
velopment of Christianity as episodic on a grand scale. thropology has generally rendered Christianity unimpor-
Christianity was “an irreversible moment of transforma- tant” (2007:9). Aptly summarizing the key difference be-
tion” in which the logic of transcendence took hold: God tweenCannellandRobbins,CourtneyHandmanwritesthat
became ultimately remote from humanity in both space “eitherChristianity’smodelofchangeisamyth(asCannell
andtime(Cannell2006:45).Suchsociologicalunderstand- argues)oritiscentraltothecreationofChristianityitself(as
ingsoftheologicalprinciplesledtoascholarlycorrelation Robbinsargues)”(2010:578).
ofChristianityand“modernity”inwhichtheruptureChris- Butepisodicandevolutionistmodelsneednotbeex-
tianitycausesinpreviouslynon-Christiansocietiesisboth clusive, and some societies might draw on both (Keane
irreversibleandnonrepeatable.Onanindividualleveltoo, 2007:162).1 Below, I return to Gellner’s third category, the
someideologiesofconversion“dependonabreakintime. neo-episodic, in this regard. My brief summaries in the
Conversion changes the individual, and however much above paragraphs are not meant to critique the substan-
he might backslide, the event itself cannot be undone” tial and detailed histories of Christianity-as-culture that
(Cannell2006:38).YetCannellarguesthatscholarlycorre- Cannell and Robbins have put forth but to highlight their
lationsbetweentranscendence,conversion,andmodernity different emphases as I introduce a third possibility that
aremisleadingoroverstated,becausetheideaoftranscen- arisesintheworkofKierkegaard:thatofrepetition.
denceisfoundoutsideChristianityaswellaswithinitand ForKierkegaard,repetitionisaslipperycategory—but,
not all varieties of Christianity emphasize transcendence. then, all of his categories are slippery, soaked in irony
Sheconcludesherintroductionbysuggestingthatanthro- and doused with multiple meanings in various voices. In
pologists“stoppresupposingthatChristianitychangesev- anunpublishedwork,Kierkegaardwrotethatrepetitionin
erything forever” (2006:45; cf. Tomlinson and McDougall thoughtoractionaloneis,strictlyspeaking,impossible,so
2013). it needs to be understood as “a way of moving on, recre-
This concluding suggestion turns away from an ating the ideal perhaps, bringing it into being” (Hannay
episodictheoryofprogresstowardanevolutionistone,in 2001:198). This understanding receives complex elabora-
Gellner’s terms, revealing a core assumption that Chris- tion in the landmark work Repetition: A Venture in Exper-
tianity, like all cultural forms, necessarily has a degree of imenting Psychology (Kierkegaard 1983b), wherein, in his
continuity with the past. The transformation wrought by typicalstyle,Kierkegaardwritesunderapseudonym,crafts
Christianity may have been a definitive moment both in differentvoices,andblendsbiography,fiction,andphilos-
personal terms (individual conversion) and world- ophyinawaythatcanbemaddeninglyelusiveforreaders
historical ones (the birth of the modern), but it also searchingforaprogrammaticphilosophy.2 Despitehisau-
motivatesprojectsthatdonotdefinethebreakwiththepast thorialsleightofhand,however,Kierkegaard’stouchstones
asabreakatall.Somesocietiesportraytheirconversionto areclear:RepetitionishiscritiqueofHegelianmediation,
Christianitythisway,suchasthePiroofthePeruvianAma- thereconciliationofapositionanditsnegation,andhispri-
zon,whoholdthattheirbecomingChristiansdidnotcon- marymodelsarebiblicalfigures.Hisargumentisusefulfor
stitute a significant change because, paradoxically, “they anthropologistswhoaimtounderstandthedistinctiveness
were already believing Christians when they converted.” ofChristiantemporalideologieswithoutoveremphasizing
Their ancestors believed in God, and “Evangelical Chris- eithercontinuityorrupture.
tianitywassimplytheirowncosmologybetterexplainedby Part one of Repetition is a “report” by the pseudony-
peoplewhoknewmoreaboutit”(Gow2006:221–222).Sim- mous author Constantin Constantius. At the beginning of
164
BringingKierkegaardintoanthropology (cid:2) AmericanEthnologist
the book, he spends several long paragraphs explaining butwastrappedinthemomentofrecollection(Kierkegaard
whatthereaderistounderstandrepetitiontomean.Here, 1983b:145).
I quote a lengthy excerpt because it provides the firmest In the second half of part one, the narrator describes
foundationforunderstandingKierkegaard’smodeloftem- atriphetooktoBerlin,whichhehadvisitedoncebefore,
porality,onethatisstructuredbyChristianmyth: withtheexpresspurposeofdiscoveringwhetherrepetition
is possible. He offers various examples to suggest that it
Repetitionisacrucialexpressionforwhat“recollection” isimpossible.Theyareplayfullytrivial:Thelandlordfrom
was to the Greeks. Just as they taught that all know- hisprevioustripisnowmarried,thecafe´’scoffeedoesnot
ing is a recollecting, modern philosophy will teach
tasteasgoodasitdidbefore.Onemainexample,discussed
that all life is a repetition. ... Repetition and rec-
at length, is his disappointment at attending a theatrical
ollection are the same movement, except in oppo-
farce.Ontheearliertrip,hehadlaugheduproariouslyand
sitedirections,forwhatisrecollectedhasbeen,isre-
admired a young girl who came to the show every night.
peatedbackward,whereasgenuinerepetitionisrecol-
lected forward. Repetition, therefore, if it is possible, This time, however, he does not find the farce enjoyable
makesapersonhappy,whereasrecollectionmakeshim or see the girl, and he soon leaves, lamenting, “There is
unhappy ... . no repetition at all.” However, he then goes to a restau-
rantwherehehadeatenbeforeandfindseverythingexactly
Indeed,whatwouldlifebeiftherewerenorepetition? the same—and, for this reason, he is again disappointed,
Who could want to be a tablet on which time writes leadinghimtocommentthatthepossibilityofrepetitionin
somethingneweveryinstantortobeamemorialvol- suchabanalplacewas“anappallingthought”(Kierkegaard
ume of the past? Who could want to be susceptible
1983b:170).Inacleverlychiasticsetup,thetheatricalfarce
to every fleeting thing, the novel, which always ener-
helpsconvincethenarratorthatrepetitionisimpossiblein
vatinglydivertsthesoulanew?IfGodhimselfhadnot
life,whereashisconfusedandfrustratedresponsestoordi-
willedrepetition,theworldwouldnothavecomeinto
narylifearethestuffoffarce.
existence. Either he would have followed the superfi-
cial plans of hope or he would have retracted every- Kierkegaard writes a peculiar kind of comedy, but he
thingandpreserveditinrecollection.Thishedidnot does so for precise authorial purposes. The “overtly paro-
do.Therefore,theworldcontinues,anditcontinuesbe- dic”firsthalfofRepetitionsetsupthe“ostensiblyserious”
causeitisarepetition.Repetition—thatisactualityand discourseofparttwo(Garff2005:244),inwhichthecomic
theearnestnessofexistence.[Kierkegaard1983b:131– experimentisleftbehindandthepossibilityofrepetitionis
133] reaffirmed.Thesecondhalfbeginswiththenarratorupdat-
ingthestoryofthenamelessyoungmaninaseriesoflet-
AsKierkegaardportraysit,repetitionisthetemporalmech-
ters.TheyoungmancompareshimselftoJob,who,inthe
anism of existence. God needed to make repetition hap-
OldTestamentstory,loseshischildren,servants,andlive-
penasaconditionoftheworld’screation,andnowhumans
stock and becomes horribly ill when Satan tests his faith
struggle to fashion their own lives by moving forward in
inGod.JobrefusestoquestionorrenounceGod,andGod
thesameway.Thosewho“recollectforward”createthem-
eventually rewards him by giving him more children and
selvesanewandcanachievefulfillment,atleasttemporar-
twice the amount of livestock he had previously. At first,
ily.Buttheydonotdothecreatingalone—forKierkegaard,
the young man admires Job because of his iron faith and
or,rather,forthenarratorConstantinConstantius,“arep-
believes that the moment of repetition comes at the end
etition is not something one brings about oneself; on the
of the story, when God blesses Job by restoring and dou-
contrary it is something brought about by someone, an
blinghiswealth.Heisshocked,then,whenhisownordeal
other:God”(Garff2005:234;seealsoMooney1998:300).3
endsabruptly—thegirlhelovedhasmarriedsomeoneelse.
To illustrate repetition, Kierkegaard first presents the
Nowtheyoungmanrethinksrepetition:Bynotgaininghis
storyofanamelessyoungman.Heappearsoneday,brim-
beloved back, he has repeated his initial condition of be-
mingwithjoy,totellthenarratorofhisloveforagirlwho
ing unknown to her. As he puts it, “She ... acted gener-
hasindicatedthatsheloveshimtoo.But,almostimmedi-
ously,ifinnootherwaythanbycompletelyforgettingme”
ately,hefallsintoadeepmelancholy,unabletorecapture
(Kierkegaard1983b:220);byforgettingherlover,thegirlhas
theinitialmomentofpassion,dwellinginsteadonwhathad
ended his torment and restored him to himself. He con-
justbeen.Thegirlstillloveshim,andhehasnottoldherof
cludesbycomparinghimselfagainwithJob,butnowonthe
hisdevastatingrealization.Thenarratorthenproposesaso-
planeoftranscendence—here,meaningexistenceindivine
lution.Heofferstofindanattractivegirlwhowillagreetobe
time—ratherthanontheimmanentlevel:
seenwiththeyoungmantosparkgossipthatwillconvince
hisbelovedtoendtheiraffair.4 Buttheyoungmandisap- Is there not, then, a repetition? Did I not get every-
pears instead, and the narrator laments that his problem thingdouble?DidInotgetmyselfagainandprecisely
wasthathe“didnotunderstandrepetition”andtherefore in such a way that I might have a double sense of its
couldnotenactit.Theyoungmanreallylovedhisparamour meaning? Compared with such a repetition, what is
165
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume41 Number1 February2014
a repetition of worldly possessions, which is indiffer- ited number of things—but not everything or anything”
enttowardthequalificationofthespirit?Onlyhischil- (2012:313).
drendidJobnotreceivedoubleagain,forahumanlife AsIsuggestabove,Kierkegaardianrepetitionhaspar-
cannotberedoubledthatway.Hereonlyrepetitionof ticular resonance with Gellner’s third theory of progress,
the spirit is possible, even though it is never so per-
theneo-episodic.Gellnerwrotethattheneo-episodic“pos-
fectintimeasineternity,whichisthetruerepetition.
sessesthemeritsofeach[othertheory]andthedefectsof
[Kierkegaard1983b:220–221]
neither”(1964:43)becauseitretainstheepisodewhilerec-
ognizingthattheepisodealoneisnotsufficientforexplain-
Thisstatementrecallsthenarrator’sclaimatthebeginning
ingtransformation.WhileKierkegaardandGellnerliveon
ofthebook:“IfGodhimselfhadnotwilledrepetition,the
worldwouldnothavecomeintoexistence.”5 different theoretical planets, and I do not aim to equate
or reconcile them, I suggest that Gellner’s claim for the
I have spent considerable time discussing this sin-
neo-episodicapplieswelltoKierkegaard’srepetition.Both
gle work because Kierkegaard’s model of repetition—
constructs can help anthropologists see what their inter-
idiosyncraticandexpansiveasitmightseem—addsause-
locutorssee:neitherfullcontinuitynorcompletebreakbut
fulthirdoptiontoepisodicandevolutionistunderstandings
momentsthatbothchangecontextsandtranscendcontexts
oftemporalityinChristianity.Kierkegaardianrepetitionre-
astheyarerepeatedonwardintothefuture.Inthenextsec-
quiresaspecificmoment,aconcreteepisode,fromwhich
tion, I argue that this model of repetition makes sense of
the present has broken, but it also requires “positive per-
Fijian Methodist attention to curses more effectively than
sistencewhichbothestablishesthe‘nextthing’andsecures
modelsofcontinuityorrupturecan.
therealityofthe‘initialthing’inthefirstplace”(Milbank
2009:159).TheDanishtermKierkegaardusesforrepetition The compelling appeal of curses
is Gjentagelse, meaning “taking again”; thus “repetition is
an act of faith ... which connects the individual to tran- IncolloquialAmericanEnglish,cursehasatleastthreedis-
scendenttruthtotransfiguretheoldintosomethingnew” tinct meanings. One is simply to use taboo language. An-
(McDonald2003:72).Inotherwords,repetitionisnotquite other is to voice one’s ill will toward another, although
break and not quite continuity, but rather an ongoing act without this expression having any effect. The third is to
oftransformativereengagementandreaffirmation.Toillus- speak with performative force, making bad things hap-
traterepetition,Kierkegaardoffersthesymbolofthehorn pentosomeonebyutteringthemintoexistence.Whereas
of a stagecoach, from which “one can never be certain of the first and second are possible for anyone to do, the
wheedlingthesamenotes”(1983b:175). thirdmeaningofcursedependsonhavingthespiritualau-
Otherscholarshaveusedthetermandconceptofrep- thority to change the world by speaking of it. Although
etitionindistinctways,including,notably,Freud(1961)in Job’s wife, in the biblical tale, tells Job to “curse God and
hisdescriptionofrepetitioncompulsion,theurgetorepeat die,” it is obviously not within Job’s power to hurt God;
thatwhich hasbeen repressed.One use ofrepetitionthat butwhenGodcursespeopleinbiblicalstories,theysuffer
resonatesespeciallyproductivelywithKierkegaard’sisJon immensely.
Bialecki’s recourse to Deleuzian assemblage theory to ar- Kierkegaard’s own family labored under a belief in a
ticulate“virtualChristianity.”Withinthesubfieldofthean- curseinthethirdsensethatwascausedbyacurseinthe
thropologyofChristianity,Bialeckiobserves,scholarshave secondsense.Hisfather,“asachildtendingsheeponthe
failedtoidentifyclearlywhattheobjectofstudyis;disal- Jutlandheath,stooduponahillandcursedGodformak-
lowingabstractionanduniversals,theycannot(orwillnot) inganinnocentchildsufferso”(Hannay1996:8).Bycursing
demarcate a singular “Christianity.” To begin to define an God,MichaelPedersenKierkegaardapparentlybelievedhe
appropriateobjectofstudy,heturnstoGillesDeleuze’s“vir- hadcausedGodtocursehimandhisfamilysothatallof
tual,” the field of potentiality “which serves to constantly his childrenwoulddie beforehedid. His son Søren came
bringnew‘actual’entitiesintobeing”;inactualexpressions tobelievethistooandwrotefamouslyofan“earthquake,”
ofthevirtual,“eachrepetitionproducessomethingnewdue amomentwhenherealizedthatthesinsofhisfatherhad
tothedifferentcircumstancesthattheoperationiscarried doomedthefamily:
outin”(Bialecki2012:307,309).Repetitioninthissense—
Itwasthenthegreatearthquakeoccurred,theterrible
the hum between potential and action, between indeter-
upheavalwhichsuddenlypressedonmeanewinfalli-
minacyanddetermination—evokesKierkegaard’smodelof
blelawfortheinterpretationofallphenomena.Itwas
repetitionindivinecreation.IhavenotdrawnonDeleuze
thenIsuspectedmyfather’sgreatagewasnotadivine
formyownargumentherebutsuggestthathisresonance
blessingbutratheracurse;thatourfamily’sexcellent
withKierkegaardopensupnewpossibilitiesfortheanthro-
mental abilities existed only for tearing us apart one
pological study of Christianity, and I agree with Bialecki’s fromanother;Ifeltthestillnessofdeathspreadingover
claim that Christianity “may be many things—an unlim- mewhenIsawinmyfatheranunhappypersonwho
166
BringingKierkegaardintoanthropology (cid:2) AmericanEthnologist
wouldsurviveusall,amonumentalcrossonthegrave effectiveforcebehindthem.In1995,theMethodistChurch
ofallhisownexpectations.[Kierkegaard1996:117] madeaformalsubmissiontoaconstitutionalreviewcom-
missioninwhichitarguedthatifFijiwerenotofficiallyde-
In consultation with his father, Kierkegaard came to clared a Christian state, then it would show that “this na-
theconclusionthatnoneoftheoldman’ssonswouldlive tionisunderaDivinecurse.”Severalyearslater,aMethodist
past age 33, the age at which Jesus had died. When his ministerexplainedtotheethnographerJacquelineRylethat
older brother turned 34, and then he himself turned 34, “thecurseofGodtous”(2010:63)inFijiwasseeninsuch
Kierkegaard was amazed and wondered if a mistake had eventsasadrought,thefallingpriceofgold,andtheconsti-
beenmadeinrecordinghisbirthdate(Garff2005:136–138). tution’stoleranceofnon-Christians.
Like the Kierkegaards’ belief in curses—at least until Most curses affect kin groups and villages. The best-
theirunexpectedbirthdaystookplace—FijianMethodists’ knowncurseinFijiistiedtothechiefdomofNavatusila,in-
ideas about curses are inseparable from their ideas about cludingthevillagersofNabutautau,whoseforebearskilled
Christianethics.InFiji,talkaboutcursesdoesnotpointto the Methodist missionary Rev. Thomas Baker and seven
adarksideoffaith;itisanintegralpartoffaith. membersofhistravelingpartyin1867.Villagershavefor-
Fijian Methodism inherited its core doctrines, liturgy, mally apologized to church leaders for the murders, hop-
and organizational structure from British Wesleyan ing to lift the curse, on three separate occasions, in 1903,
Methodism, the first British missionaries having arrived 1985,and2003.Ajournalistreportingonthethirdevent,in
fromLondonin1835andexperienceddramaticevangelical whichBaker’sdescendantswereinvitedtothevillage,wrote
success beginning in the mid-1850s. Interleaved with that “villagers believe that since 1867, either Baker’s spirit
Britishelements are distinctivelyindigenous Fijian beliefs or disapproving gods have made sure that modern devel-
in local spiritual presences, including ancestral spirits opments like electricity, a school, piped water supply and
whoseevilactionscancurselivingdescendants.6 otheressentialsenjoyedbymostFijianvillagershavebeen
Curses can originate with the words of the living. keptfromthem”(Pareti2003).
“Whenthehourofdeathisallowedtoapproachnaturally Note the ambiguity in the reporter’s phrase “either
... the dying man mentions his foe,” wrote the mission- Baker’s spirit or disapproving gods,” which suggests that
aryThomasWilliams,“thathischildrenmayperpetuatehis thereisdisagreementoverwho,precisely,iscursingthevil-
hatred,—it may be against his own son,—and kill him at lagers.ItmightbeJehovah,becauseBakerwasamanofGod
thefirstopportunity.Thenameofthehatedoneisuttered
and,astheMethodistsubmissiontotheconstitutionalre-
aloud,ifnotastheobjectofimmediatevengeance,yetof viewcommissionindicates,Godcancursethosewhoop-
gloomyanddisastrouspredictions,whichneverfailtoreach posehim.Butnotetheplural“disapprovinggods,”suggest-
theearswheretheyareleastwelcome”(1982:186–187).Sim- inganeffectiveancestralpresenceaswell.Thetheologian
ilarly,anothermissionaryrecalledhow JosephE.Bush(2000)observeddifferentunderstandingsof
curses’authorshipinhisresearchonMethodism,land,and
thememoryofasolemnvow,request,orcursewould
communalism.InNalotawa,Vitilevu,aministerexplained
be exceedingly vivid in the Fijians’ imagination, and,
to him that the local curse came from ancestor gods; the
indeed, would become almost a voice to intimidate
triggerforthecursewasthemassacreofaEuropeanplan-
them,soundingfromtheotherworld.Averyrealcon-
victionsprangupintheirmindsthat,iftheydidnotat- tationowner,hisfamily,andlaborersfromVanuatuin1873
tendtothewillofthedeadman,thelatterwouldas- (Bush2000:32).Incontrast,attheMethodists’annualcon-
suredly be able to make the survivors suffer for their ferenceinSuvain1996,thespokesmanforBuretavillagers
negligence.[Deane1921:42] onOvalauIslandexplainedthattheirland“hadlapsedinto
darknessandthepracticeofwitchcraftisrifeinthedistrict
Perhapsbecauseofscenarioslikethis,theMethodistswho to date. We believe that as a result we have been cursed
translatedtheBibleintoFijianoftentranslatedcurse(d)us- by God as we have fallen short of his glory. Our land and
ingaformofthewordcudru,meaning“anger.”7 ourlivesarebarren”(Bush2000:32).Yetancestralinfluence
Fijian curses can afflict individuals. When a 22-year- wasevidentlystillconsidereddangerousinBureta,astwo
old man was charged with molesting a girl, he testified oftheobjectsthecongregationpresentedinatonementto
that“beforemygrandfatherdied,hedidwitchcraftonme” the church were a spear and an axe “reportedly used ...
andaddedthatthechurchministerhadbaptizedhimwith for invocation of the ancestor goddess, Buisavulu” (Bush
the beverage kava (which has a strong link with ancestral 2000:29–30).
tradition) instead of water. “These days,” the young man InindigenousFiji,then,cursesareoftenunderstoodto
pleaded,“thecursecomesandmakesmedostrangethings” be the results of evil deeds done by ancestors who acted
(FijiTimes1999;n.b.,hewasconvicted).Cursescanalsobe in anti-Christian ways, and descendants of those ances-
applied to the nation, although at this level it is evidently torscantrytonegatecurses’effectsbyceremoniallyapol-
supposedtobeGodratherthantheancestorswhoarethe ogizingtopresent-daychurchleaders.Theauthorshipofa
167
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume41 Number1 February2014
particularcurse—doesitcomefromGod,theancestralspir- liesinthatroomeverydayforthelastfiveyears.Tanoa
its, or some other source?—might not matter as much as Lailaihashadastroke,Ilisapecihasdied,Jokatamaand
theapologyandatonement,whicharemeanttoeliminate Merewalesi have no children, and even Pauliasi only
theobstaclesthatstandinthewayofpeoplelivingprosper- hashaddaughtersandnosons.Thatisseenasacurse
inourculture.Youcanseeitinthefamilyandcanseeit
ously.InthecasefromNalotawa,thechiefhadapproached
inthevillage.Theyhavegoodlandbutproducenoth-
thechurchministerforhelpbecauseof“amalaisehewas
ing.Theyhavefreeeducationbutneverlearn.It’sjust
feelingwithinthecommunity,asensethatsomethingwas
likeHaggaichapter1.[Aporosafieldnotes2005,p.57,
wrong”(Bush2000:31).Baker’scursewasmanifestnotonly
inauthor’spossession]9
inthemissingbasicsofdevelopment—education,electric-
ity,pipedwater—butalsoin“problematicrelationswithlo- The practice of ritually kissing the Bible is not unique to
calgovernment ... socialproblems,infertilelandandbad Fiji:IntheearlydecadesofChristianityintheSolomonIs-
harvests,”illhealth,andillegalmarijuanacultivation(Ryle lands,thosesuspectedofsorceryontheislandofSantaIs-
2010:71, 76). In another case, villagers of Kaba in Tailevu abelwere“requiredtokisstheBibleasasignofdisavowal
province,Vitilevu,feltthattheirchildrenwerenotbecom- of any further involvement. It is generally believed that if
ingwelleducatedandbusinesseswerenotsucceeding,and anyone were to conceal sorcery in this situation, and still
theyattributedthispoorshowingtotheirancestorshaving kisstheBible,heorshewouldlikelysufferdeathwithina
helped to kill Tongan Christian missionaries. Accordingly, matterofweeksasretributionfromGod.Informantsrecall
atthe2003annualconferenceoftheMethodistChurch,the severalsuchcasesofdenialandsubsequentdeath”(White
Kabavillagersformallypresentedkavaplantsandwhales’ 1988:24).ThestoryfromKadavuresonatesstronglywiththe
teeth in apology and atonement. The church spokesman otherFijianexamplesgivenabove,however,indescribing
observedthatthe2003conferencewasthethirdconsecu- howvariouskindsofmisfortunecanresultfromanances-
tiveonetoreceiveaformalapologyfromacommunityfor tor’sactions.
itsancestors’deeds(Vula2003). A final example shows a new development in
Mistreating the Bible can result in a curse. For exam- Fijian discourse about how curses can be perpetuated.
ple, after a scandal in Namosi, Vitilevu, in 1903, in which A team funded by the evangelical Christian businessman
CatholicswereaccusedofburningMethodistBibles,astory andpoliticianJamesAhKoyproduceda“NewFijianTrans-
developed that Catholic priests had torn up the books lation”oftheBiblein2010becauseAhKoywasconcerned
andthrownthemintheriver.“Thepeopleofpresent-day aboutthestandardinterpretation—bothintheFijianBible
Namosi,”accordingtothehistorianAndrewThornley,“say and in everyday conversation—of the word kalougata as
that they are under a ‘jinx’. They claim that over the past “blessing.”Kaloumeans“god”or“spirit,”andgatameans
fiftyyearstheirtribehasbeendoggedbycontinualbadluck; both “sharp” or “effective” and “snake.” Translated as
thepresentTuiNamosi,forinstance,isthetenthsonofhis “blessing,”kalougataincorporatesthefirstsenseofgatato
father, the other nine having died. They ... attribute this denotespiritualeffectiveness.However,ifonereadsgataas
curse ... tothepriests”(1979:311).8OnKadavuIsland,one “snake,”asAhKoydoes,onegetstheominousterm“snake
community has come to believe that it is cursed because godded”(seealsoTuwere2002:137).Oneoftheparamount
an ancestor kissed the Bible after lying to a paramount spirits in pre-Christian Fiji was the great serpent god
chiefaboutlandboundariesearlyinthe20thcentury.The Degei,fromthemountainsofNakauvadra.AhKoybecame
Methodist minister for this circuit told a researcher that convincedthatwhenwell-meaningFijianssay“kalougata”
whenRatuSirLalaSukuna,representingthelandscommis- inblessingeachotherorreaditintheBible,theyareunwit-
sion, took the man’s testimony about whether a piece of tingly cursing each other by invoking Degei. His solution
landbelongedtoNaqeleloaorNayavuvillage,themandis- was to have the Bible translation changed, and his New
honestlysaidNaqeleloa. Fijian Translation team replaced kalougata throughout (it
appears200times)withkalouvinaka,literally“goodgod”;
RatuSukunawarnedthegrandfatherthatifhekissed
thus,theactofblessingisnow“good-godding.”Thetrans-
the Bible and swore an oath that Nabogi [settlement]
lators made other changes too, but the semantic slippage
belongedtoNaqeleloa,andifthiswasalie,therewould
between effectiveness and snakes drove the project from
beconsequences.ButhekissedtheBibleandsworethe
thebeginning.
oath.Thiswasthestartofthecurse,andyoucansee
howithasout-worked.Etuatehadbeentoldthestory In a conversation with Ah Koy in June 2011, I asked
fromhismotherLitia.See,Etuate’sfather,TanoaLevu whenhehadfirsthadtheideathattheFijianBibleneeded
[theonewhosworeontheBible]diedatthetimeEt- tobetranslatedanew.Heexplainedthattheideahadnot
uatewasborn.ThenEtuate’swife,oneday,wasfishing cometohimallatoncebuthadgrowngraduallyovertime.
withsomewomenatNakoro,justdisappearedandthey HehadobservedindigenousFijians’relativelackofsuccess
neverevenfoundthebody.Etuatehadastrokeandnow inprofessionalfields,which,hesuggested,wasbasedona
168
BringingKierkegaardintoanthropology (cid:2) AmericanEthnologist
lackofsustainedeffort.HeofferedtheexampleofaFijian wasroughlyonehundredfiftyyearsold,heconcludedthat
rugby team that would compete successfully in the early thepresentgenerationwasstillwithinthetimeframeofdi-
roundsofaninternationaltournamentbut,then,inthefi- vine retribution for the sins of the fathers. This made his
nalsround,wouldseemlikeacompletelydifferentteam— workurgent.Fivethousandcopiesofthefirsteditionofhis
like“neophytes,”hesaid.Ponderingthislackofsustained translationwereprintedin2010,andthecompletetextwas
effort toward high achievement, he came to feel that the alsomadeavailableforfreeontheInternet(AhKoyChris-
core problem was the Bible’s translation of “blessing” as tianTrust2011).Onthedaywespoke,ashipmentof10,000
kalougata. copies of a revised second edition with minor corrections
Ah Koy explained that pre-Christian indigenous was supposed to arrive in Fiji from an overseas printing
Fijians had their own holy trinity, with Degei as the fa- house.AhKoysaidheplannedtoprint400,000copiesofthe
ther, Dakuwaqa (a shark god) as the son, and Daucina NewFijianTranslationbecausethereareroughly400thou-
(“the great god of seafaring” [Waterhouse 1997:256], who sandindigenousFijiansintheworldatpresent.
“stealswomenofrankandbeautybynightortorch-light” The question of how one removes a curse is, in Ah
[Williams 1982:218]) as the Holy Spirit. He speculated Koy’s project, given a simple answer: One merely corrects
thatearlymissionarieshadaskedvillageelderswhattheir theBibletranslationthatiscausingitinthefirstplace.But
word for “blessing” was, and they had innocently replied in most of the cases described above, the answer is that
kalougatabecausegoingtothesnakegodwashowtheygot congregations must ritually apologize and atone for their
what they wanted in those days. In translating “blessing” ancestors’ misdeedsby presentingsperm whales’ teethto
askalougataintheBible,theMethodistmissionarieswere church leaders. When church leaders accept the presen-
actuallyperpetuatingacurse,bringingthepowerofDegei tations, curses are supposed to be lifted. As the linguist
intoJehovah’stext. PaulGeraghtytoldRyle,“Peopletalkof‘bulukinanaca’—
Ah Koy decided to discuss the matter with the Bible evil[ca]beingburied[bulu]byit[thewhale’stooth]”(Ryle
SocietyoftheSouthPacificandconsidereditprovidential 2010:70;oneofthetermsusedforthiskindofformalapol-
thatheandthesocietybothhadthesamelawyer,whomhe ogy is ibulubulu, which literally means “burial”). As Bush
askedtosetupameeting.Whenthemeetingwasheld,Ah explains in relation to the apology from Bureta, when the
Koyofferedthesocietyfunding,includinganinterest-free president of the Methodist Church accepted the whale’s
loan, to expunge the 200 instances of the word kalougata tooth,itmeant“inapriestlywaythatthissinisforgivenand
fromnewprintingsoftheBibleandreplaceitwithabetter thetroubleithascausedisover.Itisburied”(2000:30).At
alternative.Hedidnotpreferanyparticularword,hesaid, thethirdritualapologymeanttoliftBaker’scurse,heldin
but,inourconversation,hementionedkalouvinaka(good 2003,rainbegantofallafterthehighchiefmadehiswhale’s
god)andkalousautu(peacefulorabundantgod)aspossi- toothpresentation,andpeopleinterpretedtherainasasign
ble choices. However, Bible Society board members were fromGodofhisforgiveness(Ryle2010:67).
notinterestedinhisoffer—later,theywouldthreatenhim And,yet,asIhavearguedelsewhere(Tomlinson2012),
withlegalactionovercopyrighttothebiblicaltext—andAh theprominenceofcursesinFijiandiscourse—andtherep-
Koyrealizedthathewouldneedtoleadtheprojecthimself. etitionofapologiesintheBakercase—suggeststhatcurses
Thetwotranslatorswhocameforwardtodothework donotreallygoaway.Indeed,thesymbolismusedinrituals
werebothfromBauIsland,thedominantpoliticalpowerin of apology and atonement actually strengthens the sense
precolonialandcolonialFiji.AhKoyconsideredtheirwill- that curses exist and must be addressed. Whales’ teeth, a
ingnesstodotheworktobeanotherprovidentialsign,not necessary part of a presentation of apology, are inextrica-
only because of Bau’s historical importance but also be- blytiedtothepowerandauthorityofthelandandchiefly
causetheBauandialectisthebasisforwhathasbecomethe system,preciselythepowerandauthoritythatmakecurses
nationalstandardlanguageversion(StandardFijian)thanks frighteningly effective in the first place. Moreover, when
tothepioneeringworkoftheMethodistmissionarytransla- Ryleaskedherinterlocutorswhythepreviousapologiesfor
tors.AhKoyalsoappreciatedthefactthatthetwowerepas- theBakerparty’smurderwerenotconsideredsufficient—
torsintheAssembliesofGodChurch,withwhosedoctrines whyapologizeathirdtime?—shewasremindedbyanevan-
heagreed. gelicalleaderofthebiblicalclaim,whichAhKoyhadalso
Inourconversation,AhKoyreferredtotheBiblepas- mentioned (made in Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9, and
sageExodus20:1–7,inwhichGodbeginstodelivertheten Numbers14:18),thatforefathers’sinscanbepunishedinto
commandmentsandwhichincludestheline,“ItheLORD the“thirdandfourthgenerations”(2010:74).Bythislogic,
thyGodamajealousGod,visitingtheiniquityofthefathers cursesmightbedampenedbutnotextinguisheduntilGod’s
uponthechildrenuntothethirdandfourthgenerationof angerrunsitsslowcourse.10
themthathateme.”AhKoybelievedthattheseversesjus- Meanwhile, the Baker curse is growing in popularity.
tifiedhisinterpretationofFijianhistory.Estimatingthata Villagers in the province of Naitasiri have come to be-
generationcouldbefiftyyearslongandthattheFijianBible lieve that they too are cursed because of the evangelist’s
169
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume41 Number1 February2014
murder, although their ancestors did not do the killing. whentheymeantoblesseachother—thentheyarecontin-
Rather,achieffromNaitasirihadoriginallyrequestedthat uouswithChristianity.CursesareinherenttoFijianChris-
Bakerbekilled.InJuly2011,apartyof70,includingseven tianityjustasChristianityisinherenttoFijianunderstand-
Methodist church officials from Naitasiri, marched from ingsoftradition.11
the murder site to Davuilevu Theological College to for-
Absurdity
mally apologize once again to Baker’s descendants and
MethodistChurchleaders.Thesuperintendentministerof
In the preceding sections, I have begun to develop an ar-
the Naitasiri Methodist Church district, Moape Tavakula,
gumentthatcursesarecompellingculturalforms.Bythis,
explainedthattheritualapologywould“freetheprovince
I mean to make three interconnected points. The idea of
fromthecursefortheirroleinkillingReverendBaker.The
acurse(1)motivatespeopletoactauthoritatively(e.g.,in
peopleofNaitasirihavetoapologiseforthewrongdoingsof
conductingritualsmeanttoextinguishthecurse);(2)while
theirforefathers. ... ThepeopleofNaitasiriarenowseek-
displacingtheirownagency(e.g.,increditingancestralspir-
ingforgivenessfromtheMethodistChurch”(Nauwakarawa
itsorGodwithbeingtheeffectivepowerbehindthecurse);
andSauvakacolo2011).
and(3)doingsoinprojectsofreplication(perUrban2001;
That Fijian curses do not really go away—notably
see also Miyazaki 2000 on the “abeyance of agency”). In
unlike the Kierkegaard family curse—brings me back to
the cases described here, ritual actors (those who apolo-
Kierkegaard’s model of repetition. Fijian curses have as-
gize and those who receive apologies) replicate the curse
pects of both rupture and continuity. They are ruptures
by reestablishing indexical links between ancestors’ mis-
in the sense that ancestors challenged Christian domina-
deeds and people’s present-day misfortunes. The concept
tion by committing anti-Christian acts; they are continu-
of“compulsion,”asIuseit,ismeanttorevealthatpeople
ous in the sense that past acts directly affect people’s for-
feel that they must do something but also that they can-
tunes in the present. The key point is that curses need to
not really control anything (see also Tomlinson 2010). By
be reengaged with and reaffirmed as part of the project
describing curses as compelling,I also mean to challenge
of being Christian in Fiji. Faith in their efficacy needs to
the English-language connotation they have as horrifying
be repeated—recollected forward in projects that aim at
thingsthatneedtobedoneawaywithandtoencouragea
fulfillment but are never complete. Recall Toren’s point,
readingofthemasthingsthatpeoplewanttoengagewith
quotedabove,thatindigenousFijiansconsidertheirances-
repeatedly.Idonotmeantominimizethepainsandfrus-
tors to have had an “inherent Christianity” despite their
trationsthatmotivateFijianMethodiststospeakofcurses.
anti-Christian behavior. Analyzing popular reproductions
Rather,Imeantoaddanewdimensiontoanthropological
ofLeonardoDaVinci’sLastSupperinrelationtoFijianideas
thinkingaboutChristianityasculture.
ofchieflinessandhierarchy,Torenwrites,
Asmentionedabove,MarshallSahlinshaswrittenthat
Judeo-Christianmodelsportrayhumansasselfishseekers
IfthequintessentiallyChristian“LastSupper”canrep-
ofcomfort:
resent Fijian chiefship—which itself exemplifies “the
wayinthemanneroftheland”—thenitcanalsoimply
At a certain period in Western history all of human
thatFijianchiefswerealwaysinherentlyChristian;that
societyandbehaviorcametobeperceived,popularly
even long ago “in the time of the devils,” before “the
aswellasphilosophically,throughthemastertropeof
comingofthelight,”thechiefsembodiedafundamen-
individual pleasures and pains. ... Everything came
tal Christianity—one that was obscured by the prac-
downtothesimpleandsadideaoflifeasmovement
ticesforceduponthembytheancestorsintheirmalign
towardsthosethingsthatmadeonefeelgoodandaway
aspect.Thelightmadethemseethathumansacrifice
fromthosethingsthathurt.Isay“sad”becauseanyone
and cannibalism, war and wife capture, widow stran-
whodefineslifeasthepursuitofhappinesshastobe
gulationandpolygamyweresinsimposedonthemby
chronicallyunhappy.[1996:415]
theirignoranceoftheChristianGod.Buttheyhadonly
tostripawaythesepracticestostandrevealedastrue
The pursuit of happiness, for Sahlins, is sad in its selfish-
Christians,aspeoplewhoseverytraditionwasatbase
ness; the “folk wisdom of ‘human nature’” (1996:400) in
Christian.[1988:712]
this Western tradition holds that we are biologically pro-
This logic mirrors the logic of curses. In other words, grammedtoseeksatisfaction.IndigenousFijians,whohave
per Toren, if Fijians have always had an inherently enthusiasticallyadoptedChristiancosmologybutnotnec-
Christian identity, then curses are ruptures in an overall essarily sociobiology, do link curses with ancestors who
continuity. Yet, if curses are not easily lifted and continue actedinselfishways,suchaslyingaboutlandownership.
toaffectcommunitiesandmotivateritualresponses—such Butratherthanmovingawayfromthosethingsthathurt,
asthemultipleapologiesfromNabutautauvillagersandAh FijianMethodistsmovetowardthemindiscourseandrit-
Koy’sprojecttosaveBiblereadersfromcursingeachother ual.Onemightobjectthatthepointofdefusingacurseisto
170
BringingKierkegaardintoanthropology (cid:2) AmericanEthnologist
getridofthepain sothatgreater pleasures—blessedness, quiring acceptance of the “absolute paradox” of God be-
vitality,prosperity—becomepossible.Moreover,asSahlins coming incarnate as a man (Evans 1989:348). Achieving
also observes, the idea that earthly suffering leads to “a such faith requires a terrifying inward struggle. “Without
greaterbeneficialorder”(1996:407)ispartofChristianity’s risk,”hedeclares,“nofaith”(Kierkegaard1992:204).
promise.Indeed,themodelofsufferingasthepathtopar- A key example of an absurd paradox is God’s tempo-
adiseisevidentinthedoctrinethatChristneededtosuffer rality. As the creator of the world, God is eternal, but in
tosavehumanityfromitssins.Idonotargueagainstthese the form of Jesus, he appeared within finite human his-
points but, rather, emphasize that suffering itself can be- tory:“Theabsurdisthattheeternaltruthhascomeintoex-
comeafocusofattentionandthatsuchattention’sprospec- istenceintime”(Kierkegaard1992:210).Logically,thetwo
tiveforce—itsownhopefulness(perMiyazaki2004)—leads claimscannotbereconciled.Kierkegaard’smostpoignant
backtowardanengagementwithsufferingratherthantran- statementoftheabsurdityoffaithandthesufferingiten-
scendenceofit. tails comes at the beginning of his classic work Fear and
Anembraceofsufferingisinherentinthedescription Trembling. After an epigraph and a brief preface, he de-
of Christ as the “suffering servant.” This model is some- scribes how a particular man admired the story of Abra-
timestakenupenthusiasticallybythoseseekingtoembody hamandIsaacmoreandmoreasheagedbutunderstood
Christianprinciplesasfaithfully(read:painfully)aspossi- it less. The story, found in Genesis 22, tells how God or-
ble.EnragedbyafawningeulogyofCopenhagen’sBishop ders Abraham to go to a mountain in the land of Moriah
JakobPeterMynster,Kierkegaardpublishedacomplaintin tosacrificehisonlyson,Isaac.BothAbrahamandhiswife
whichhemockedtheeulogist’sclaimthatthelatebishop Sarah had been very old when Isaac was born—Abraham
hadbeenawitnesstoChristiantruth.WhereasMynsterval- had been 100—and his birth was a miraculous delivery
uedeaseandpleasure,Kierkegaardargued,atrue“witness on a promise God had made. In Genesis 22, the miracle
tothetruth”shouldcarryouthiswitnessing“inpoverty,in seems about to be undone with God’s command, and a
lowlinessandabasement ... sounappreciated,hated,de- perplexedIsaacaskshisfatherastheyproceed,“Whereis
tested, so mocked, insulted, laughed to scorn ... flogged, the lamb for a burnt offering?” (Genesis 22:7). Abraham
mistreated, dragged from one prison to another” until he replies that God will provide the lamb, and they continue
“iscrucifiedorbeheadedorburnedorbroiledonagrill,” travelingtotheplacewhereGodhasindicatedheexpects
adding, for good measure, that his body should not be the sacrifice.13 Abraham ties up his son, places him on
buried (Kierkegaard 1998:6; see also Garff 2005:729–733). an altar, and draws his knife. At this point, an angel tells
This,obviously,wasnotthelifethatBishopMynsterled.12 himtostop,“fornowIknowthatthoufearestGod,seeing
Justasobviously,itwasthekindofChristianlifeKierkegaard thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me”
wantedtolead.Laterheelaborated, (Genesis 22:12). Abraham immediately sees a ram whose
hornsaretangledinathicketandsacrificestheraminplace
Original Christianity relates itself so militantly to this
ofhisson.
worldthatits view is: nottowant toslip happilyand
The story, told straightforwardly, is horrifying. God
comfortablythroughthisworldbuttotakecaretocol-
grants miraculous life and then appears ready to take it
lideindeadearnestwiththisworldsothatafterhaving
away arbitrarily. To display his faith in God, Abraham has
fought and suffered in this way one might be able to
passin[God’s]judgment ... . to submit to a command that will undo God’s miracu-
lous blessing of his family. If one tries to make sense of
Thusthereisaworldofdifference,aheavenofdiffer- it logically, God seems either fickle or evil. And here is
encebetweentheMynsterianlife-view(whichactually Kierkegaard’s genius as a storyteller: He begins Fear and
isEpicurean,oneoftheenjoymentoflife,ofzestforlife, Tremblingwithhisanonymoussubject—themanwhoad-
belongingtothisworld)andtheChristianview,which miresthenarrativeofAbrahamandIsaacevenashefindsit
is one of suffering, of enthusiasm for death, belong- increasinglydifficulttounderstand—andrelatestheman’s
ingtoanotherworld.Indeed,thereissuchadifference
repeatedattemptstotellthestorysothatitresolvesitselfra-
between these two life-views that to [the late] Bishop
tionallyandhumanely.AsKierkegaardunfoldsthescenes,it
Mynsterthelattermustlook ... likeakindoflunacy.
becomesapparentthatsucharationalunderstandingofthe
[Kierkegaard1998:206]
storyisimpossible.14Heconcludesthesequenceofstories
Kierkegaard’stoneissoferociousthat,inevaluatinghis withaeulogyforAbrahaminwhichheexultsthathe“will
statement,onemightbetemptedtofocusonthelastword neverforgetthatin130yearsyougotnofurtherthanfaith”
of the quotation. But his passionate endorsement of pain (Kierkegaard1983a:23).Butthisisanexcruciatingfaith.It
and suffering is an integral part of his philosophy of faith is far removed from a vision of Christian subjects seeking
asabsurdity.ForKierkegaard,Christianfaithcannotbere- pleasureandavoidingpain,thescenariosthatKierkegaard
ducedtologic;itis“suprarational”(McDonaldinpress),re- rejects.
171
AmericanEthnologist (cid:2) Volume41 Number1 February2014
In his later writings, Kierkegaard moves from dis- Christianityinwhichpainandpleasurearenotopposites.
cussing absurdity to discussing the “inverse dialectic” in Kierkegaard’sphilosophyisanfractuousandobsessive,but,
which Christianity makes it possible for a person to cre- in its dippings and spinnings, it manages to give anthro-
ateanewself“byseeinginthingstheiropposites,suchas pologicaltractiontoideasthatFijianMethodistsworkwith
strengthinweakness,exaltationinlowliness,prosperityin repeatedly.
adversity, and hope in hopelessness” (McDonald in press;
Notes
see also Walsh 2005). Kierkegaard’s vision is ultimately a
hopefulone:Beyonddespairandpersecution,aChristian
Acknowledgments. My sincere thanks to “Apo” Aporosa, Jon
canachievelimitlessfaithinGod’slove.Butbecauseafaith- Bialecki,WilliamMcDonald,andthethreeanonymousreviewers
ful Christian is expected to achieve a new self by imitat- forAmericanEthnologistforcommentsonearlierversionsofthis
ingChrist,sheorhe“canexpectonlypersecutionandcon- article.PaulGeraghty,ChrisGregory,andRobertWolfgrammalso
gave valuable information and advice. Any errors are my own.
temptfromourfellows,orevenmartyrdom”(McDonaldin
Fundingfortheresearchonwhichthisarticleisbasedcamefrom
press). Thus, while the goal of embracing adversity is not
a Discovery Project grant from the Australian Research Council
to enjoy it but to achieve a new kind of spiritual prosper- (DP0878736),whichIgratefullyacknowledge.
ity,itwouldbeamistaketoreducetheinversedialectictoa 1. Indeed, Robbins has recently written in regard to time that
characterizationofChristianityasamovementtowardgood “manyPentecostalsmakeabreakthatislessthanclean.Forthem,a
feelingsandawayfrombadones.Thepleasuresandpains keydynamicofthebreakisoneofatonceseekingtorejectthepast
andatthesametimecuratingitsothatitsrejectioncancontinue
constituteeachother.
tomotivatecommitmenttotheeventofconversioninthefuture”
(2010:647;seealsoRobbins2011).
Conclusion
2. Kierkegaard uses pseudonyms to represent his author-
characters’ positions within “stages” of existence, so scholars of
Inthisarticle,IhavearguedthatKierkegaard’sconceptsof
hisworkoftentakecaretodistinguishwhichpseudonymousau-
“repetition”and“absurdity”cangivescholarsinsightsinto
thor,representingwhichposition,isbeingdiscussed.Theauthorof
Christianmodelsofcontinuityanddiscontinuityaswellas Repetitioniscalled“ConstantinConstantius”(“who ...hasrepeti-
the value accorded to suffering that is not transcended. I tioninscribedwithinhisname”[Garff2005:233]),andtheauthor
have analyzed Fijian Methodists’ engagement with curses ofFearandTremblingiscalled“JohannesdeSilentio.”BothCon-
stantinandJohannesrepresentKierkegaard’sstageof“aesthetic”
byusingbothconcepts.Cursescompelrepeatedritualac-
existence, which is meant to be surpassed by the ethical stage
tions that look to the future while, as John Milbank has
and then the religious stage. Later in his career, the pseudonym
it,fixing“therealityofthe‘initialthing’inthefirstplace” “Anti-Climacus”was“meanttorepresent theidealChristianpo-
(2009:159).TheyareabsurdintheKierkegaardiansensebe- sition”(McDonald2003:77).Despitetheimportanceofpseudony-
cause they depend for their vitality on irresolvable para- mous positioning for Kierkegaard studies, in this article I treat
Kierkegaardasasingleauthorbecausemymainconcernistoil-
doxes,amongthem,thatrituallyextinguishingcursesdoes
luminateFijianethnographywiththesetofconceptsheoffers.
notgetridofthembutremakesthemforthefuture.Inmak-
3. ScholarswhowriteofKierkegaard’s“anthropology”thustend
ingthissecondargument,Ibroadenedmyscopetocritique to do so in a theological vein, defining anthropology partly in
theclaimthatChristianmodelsofhumanitysetpeoplein terms of humanity’s relationship to God (e.g., “At the heart of
metaphoricalmotionawayfrompainandtowardpleasure. Kierkegaard’santhropologyistheinsightthatahumanbeingisa
relationshipofopposingforcesthattheselfmustrelatetogether,
ForFijianMethodists,whobelievetheystrugglebecauseof
andinturnrelatetoGod”[Sousa2012:37];seealsoHoue2000).My
curses,andfortheoristslikeKierkegaard—whobelievedfor
useofKierkegaardiantermsandconceptsinthisarticleistherefore
alongtimethathisfamilywascursedandwhoalsocharac- notjustarecontextualizationofthembutatransformationofthem
terizedChristianfaithbyanimpossiblypainfulstandard— fornontheologicalpurposes,asteptowardthegoalofrethinking
Christianityoffersapleasurethatisemphaticallynotfound howanthropologicalengagementwiththeologycannotonlycri-
tiqueanddevelopanthropologybutalsotransformit,perRobbins
inmovementawayfrompainbutis,rather,asweetnessin
2006.
sadness.
4. Thismaysoundlikeadeeplyproblematicsolution,butitpar-
Kierkegaard’s anthropology was a distinctly theologi- allelsthewayKierkegaardhandledhisownbrokencourtship,an
caloneinwhichindividualsstrugglepassionatelytocreate incidentthatinspiredscenesinRepetitionaswellasotherpublica-
themselvesinrelationtoGod.Joiningthistheologicaland tions(Garff2005:246–248;HongandHong1983).
5. Aftertheyoungman’sstoryisfinished,afinalletterispre-
individualisticmodelwithruralFijianethnographymakes
sented,fromthenarratortothereader,inwhichheexplainsthat
foranunusualmarriage,but,asIhavearguedinthisarticle,
hecreatedthefictionalcharacteroftheyoungmanasawayofil-
understandingindigenousFijianengagementswithcurses lustratingthe“exception,”theindividualwhostrugglesforanever-
intermsofrepetitionandabsurditymakesbettersenseof possiblereconciliationwiththeuniversal(Kierkegaard1983b:227–
them than other theoretical approaches do: Such engage- 229).Kierkegaard’sinvocationofbiblicalfigurestoillustraterepe-
titionformallyresemblesU.S.fundamentalists’understandingof
ments come into focus as ongoing acts in which people
typological prefiguration, in which, as Susan Harding (2000) de-
constitutethemselvesasdistinctkindsofreligioussubjects
scribes,present-dayhumansseethemselvesaslivingoutandful-
whoseclaims,whichmightbereadasparadoxical,createa fillingcharacterologicalmodelsfromtheBible(seeTomlinson2010
172