Personhood as a Tool to Reflect upon Koinonia

Anglican Theological Review, Spring 2006 by Brown, Terry

This article examines the New Testament concept of koinonia (communion, fellowship) from the perspective of two concepts of personhood: Western European individualism and Melanesian relationalism. After a cautionary examination of the terms "communion," "personhood," "Melanesian," "European," and "culture," the article discusses New Testament koinonia, noting its especially Pauline character. The article then surveys the Western European individualism in which personhood is experienced and understood primarily in terms of the autonomous individual. Next, it surveys the Melanesian (and more broadly, Oceanic) relationalism in which personhood is experienced and understood primarily in terms of relationships. The article draws on the observations of early twentieth-century missionary-ethnologist Maurice Leenhardt, current anthropological discussions, and the author's personal experience of Melanesia to illustrate the latter. Finally, the article reflects briefly on how one's experience and understanding of personhood might affect, both positively and negatively, how one understands and lives koinonia.

As a stimulus to discussion of the theme of this theological hui (gathering)-"Communion: Rhetoric or Reality?"-I shall reflect on my experience of "communion" and "personhood" in "Melanesian" and "European" cultures over the past thirty years. I have put all four of these words in quotation marks because they are very fluid concepts these days, whether one is speaking or writing about geography, culture, linguistics, anthropology, psychology, or even theology. Many would argue that they lack any "essential" or "ontological" base-in-deed, that they all can easily (and dangerously) shade into rhetoric. Even the concept of "culture" itself has come under much scrutiny and question by anthropologists, philosophers, historians, and theologians, with the argument that all culture is ultimately hybrid, constantly in flux. In the words of the historian of anthropology James Clifford, "the pure products go crazy."1 Solomon Islands pijin is an example of Oceanic-European cultural hybridity. We could not live without it. The Prayer Book we use is another example of such creative and life-giving hybridity.

Some Cautions

Before proceeding, I will point out some of the weaknesses of each of these concepts or descriptions, and make necessary revisions. First, many anthropologists and historians of the South Pacific point out that the traditional division of Oceania into "Polynesia," "Melanesia," and "Micronesia" was a European geographical construct, a part of the whole European colonial enterprise to objectify, explain, tame, and ultimately conquer the peoples of the South Pacific. A more balanced view would be to see all of the cultures of Oceania as a very rich continuum, often sharing much more in common than is first apparent. Of course, a similar view of "race" has also been taking place globally for at least the last seventy-five years. From this continuum perspective, arguments about whether Fijians are "Polynesians" or "Melanesians," for example, become irrelevant. Of course, there are language "families" and noticeable and discussable differences between the "extremes" on the continuum, but even "extremes" is a problematic concept as Oceanic cultures blend into larger continua with Asian and other indigenous cultures, such as those of North and South America, Asia, and Australia. So, rather than using terms such as "Polynesian," "Melanesian" or "Micronesian," I will try to use the broader term "Oceanic," realizing that even this concept is part of a continuum.

In the Solomons and many places in the South Pacific, the term "European" is historically the word used to describe "white" colonists, settlers, missionaries, traders, government agents, business people, and tourists. Of course, "Europeans" came from a variety of "European" countries, whether Great Britain, France, Germany, the USA, and (eventually) Australia, or New Zealand. The term "European" tends to pass over the differences in culture, language, social class and social structure, styles of colonialism, and religion of the various countries noted above. Nor is the term exhaustive in any way to describe "outside" cultural presences and influences on the South Pacific. In many places in Oceania today, Asian economic, cultural, social, and political influence is much greater (and sometimes more pernicious) than the influence of "traditional European" colonial or neocolonial powers such as the USA, Britain, or Australia. For the Solomons, one has only to mention recent, major Asian contributions to the country's corruption at all levels; to unsustainable harvesting and export of round logs; to unsustainable and unlicensed fishing; and to the problematic role of Taiwan (diplomatic relations aimed at Taiwan's recognition at the United Nations) and Korea (through the Unification Church, or "Moonies") in the Solomon Islands' erratic government. In a strange twist of fate, the traditional European "colonial powers" have become the rescuers in a very difficult situation while the country's Asian neighbors continue to exploit unabated. So we must not leave Asia out of the picture.