You are on page 1of 19

Tradition, Genuine or Spurious

Author(s): Richard Handler and Jocelyn Linnekin


Source: The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 97, No. 385 (Jul. - Sep., 1984), pp. 273-290
Published by: American Folklore SocietyAmerican Folklore Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/540610
Accessed: 15/10/2010 07:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois and
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=folk.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and American Folklore Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of American Folklore.

http://www.jstor.org
RICHARD HANDLER and
JOCELYN LINNEKIN

Tradition, Genuineor Spurious

LIKE MANY SCHOLARLY


CONCEPTS, "tradition" is at once a commonsenseand a
scientific category. In its commonsense meaning, tradition refers to an in-
herited body of customs and beliefs. In the social sciences, an ongoing
discoursehas attemptedto refinethis understandingof traditionas it has proven
empirically and theoretically inadequate. Recent efforts to clarify the con-
cept of tradition, most notably those of EdwardShils (1971, 1981), do much
to add nuanceto our conventionalunderstandingbut leave unresolveda major
ambiguity: does traditionreferto a core of inheritedculture traits whose con-
tinuity and boundednessare analogous to that of a natural object, or must
traditionbe understoodas a wholly symbolicconstruction?We will arguethat
the latter is the only viable understanding-a conclusionwe have arrivedat by
comparingour independentinvestigationsin two quite disparateethnographic
situations. In our attempts to analyze national and ethnic identification in
Quebec and Hawaii we have concluded that tradition cannot be defined in
terms of boundedness,givenness, or essence. Rather, traditionrefersto an in-
terpretiveprocessthat embodiesboth continuity and discontinuity. As a scien-
tific concept, traditionfails when those who use it are unableto detachit from
the implicationsof Western common sense, which presumesthat an unchang-
ing core of ideas and customs is always handeddown to us from the past.
As many writers have noted (e.g., Eisenstadt1973; Rudolph and Rudolph
1967; Singer 1972; Tipps 1973), one inadequacy of the conventional
understandingof traditionis that it posits a falsedichotomy between tradition
and modernity as fixed and mutually exclusive states. M. E. Smith (1982) has
pointed out that "traditional" and "new" are interpretiverather than de-
scriptiveterms: since all cultureschange ceaselessly,there can only be what is
new, although what is new can take on symbolic value as "traditional." Fol-
lowing Smith's lead, we can see that designatingany part of culture as old or
new, traditionalor modern, has two problematicimplications. First, this ap-
proach encouragesus to see culture and tradition naturalistically,as bounded
entities made up of constituent partsthat are themselvesboundedobjects. Sec-
ond, in this atomisticparadigmwe treat culture and its constituentsas entities
having an essence apart from our interpretation of them; we attempt to
specify, for example, which trait is old, which new, and to show how traitsfit

Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 97, No. 385, 1984


Copyright © 1984 by the American Folklore Society 0021-8715/84/3850273-18$2.30/1
274 RICHARDHANDLERandJOCELYNLINNEKIN

together in the largerentities that we call "a culture" and "a tradition." The
task of a naturalisticscienceof traditionis to identify and describethe essential
attributes of cultural traits, rather than to understandour own and our sub-
jects' interpretivemodels. The prevailingunderstandingof tradition, both in
our commonsense notion and in scholarlyelaborationsof it, embodies these
premises.
The naturalistic conception of tradition can be traced to a lineage of
Western social-scientificthought that dates at least from Edmund Burke and
the reaction to the Enlightenment (Mannheim 1953). The 19th-centurycon-
cepts of traditionand traditionalsociety, used (whether as ideal types or as em-
piricalgeneralizations)as a baselineagainstwhich to understandsocial change
and "modern society," were embodied in such well-known dichotomies as
Maine's status and contract, T6nnies' Gemeinschaftand Gesellschaft,
Durkheim's mechanicaland organic solidarity, and, into the 20th century,
Sapir'sgenuine and spuriousculture and Redfield's folk-urbancontinuum. In
Americananthropology, the receivedunderstandingof traditionis exemplified
by A. L. Kroeber's classic definition: tradition is the "internal handing on
through time" of culture traits (Kroeber 1948:411). Kroeber'sdefinition ac-
cords with the commonsenseview of traditionas a core of traits handeddown
from one generation to the next. Kroeberalso enunciatedpremisesthat have
proven tenaciousin scholarlydiscussionsof tradition, especiallythe identifica-
tion of a society with a particulartradition, and the notion that temporalcon-
tinuity is the defining characteristicof social identity. Kroeber's concept of
tradition found its most logical applicationin American archaeology,where
tradition refers to "single technologies or other unified systems of forms"
characterizedby "long temporal continuity" (Willey and Phillips 1958:37).
The archaeological concept points up the implications of modeling the
phenomenonof traditionafter naturalobjects. We would argue that tradition
resemblesless an artifactualassemblagethan a processof thought-an ongoing
interpretationof the past.
In contrastto Kroeber'sconceptionof tradition, the merit of EdwardShils's
approachis his insistence that tradition changes continually. Shils (1981:19)
acknowledgesthat the unchangingfolk society never existed, and is carefulto
build variationinto his definition of traditionalphenomena: "they change in
the process of transmission as interpretations are made of the tradition
presented"(1981:13). SinceShilsrecognizesthat traditionchangesincessantly,
it is surprisingto find that his understandingof traditiondependsnonetheless
upon the notion of an unchanging, essentialcore. He therebyperpetuatesthe
naturalistic paradigm, which defines objects by specifying their temporal,
spatial, and/or qualitativeboundaries.In spite of his insistence that tradition
changes ceaselessly, Shils offers an unambiguous, basal definition: "in its
barest, most elementarysense . . . it is anything which is transmittedor hand-
ed down from the past to the present" (1981:12). To distinguish tradition
from "fashion," Shils (1981:15) posits objectivelyverifiabletemporalcriteria:
"it has to last over at least three generations . . . to be a tradition." Change
TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS 275

itselfis discussedin termsof the accretionof new culturalelementsthatleave


otherpiecesin recognizably unchangedform.As Shils(1981:14)phrasesit, the
"essentialelements"of tradition"persistin combinationwith otherelements
whichchange,but whatmakesit a traditionis thatwhatarethoughtto be the
essentialelementsare recognizable. . . as being approximately identicalat
successivesteps."
The notionof an approximate identitysuggestschange,howeverminimal,
but if anobjectchangesdoesit not becomesomethingnew anddifferent?One
way to escapethis dilemmais to invokeorganicmetaphors,to suggestthat
traditionsare like organismsthat grow and change while yet remaining
themselves.Shils does not resortto this devicebut, as we will show, the
organicanalogyis a commonelementin nationalistic theoriesof tradition.For
the momentwe wish onlyto pointout thatthe notionof approximate identity
posesinescapable problems. As David Schneider (1968:67) suggested,the
has
problem with viewing culturalphenomenanaturalistically is that the bound-
for and
ariesof suchthingsareinevitably"fuzzy" both actors observers.Hav-
ing chosento describesocialfactsasif theywerenaturalobjects,one is embar-
rassedto find that one cannotdefinitivelybound them in spaceand time,
althoughsuchboundedness is necessaryto satisfyourunderstanding of whata
naturalobjectis.
Both the scholarlyand commonsenseunderstandings of traditionhave
presumedthat a societyis identifiedby its traditions,by a core of teachings
handeddown fromthe past. The veryidentityof a societyrestson this con-
tinuityof thepastwith thepresent.As Shilswrites:"It wouldnot be a society
if it did not haveduration.The mechanisms of reproduction give it the dura-
tion which permitsit to be definedas a society"(1981:167).Shilsdoes not
claimthat the legacyof the pastis immutable,but he stressesthatan essential
identitypersistsovertime throughoutmodifications. Thisis the fuzzybound-
ariesproblemwrit large.In a sectiontitled"The Identityof Societiesthrough
Time," Shils(1981:163)notesthatin spiteof ceaselesschange,"eachsociety
remainsthe same society. Its membersdo not wake up one morningand
discoverthey areno longerlivingin, let us say, Britishsociety."This unity
overtimederivesfroma sharedtradition:"Memoryleavesanobjectivedeposit
in tradition.... It is thischainof memoryandof the traditionwhichassimi-
latesit thatenablessocietiesto go on reproducing themselveswhilealsochang-
ing" (1981:167).
The notionof an "objectivedeposit"is fundamental to the commonsense
understanding of tradition,and it a
provides telling contrast to our view of
traditionas symbolically constituted.As muchas Shilsandotherscholarshave
refinedthe conceptof tradition,the one "ineluctable"fact,to usea wordthat
Shilsfavors,is that the past leavessome objectivelydefinableinheritance,a
"substantive content"(1981:263).Shils'sdiscussionof the processesof change
in traditionrevealsthe drawbacksof his paradigm,which in spiteof its ap-
parent sophisticationbears striking resemblanceto Kroeber'shistorical-
particularist model. Shils (1981:273ff.)even invokesthe same processesof
276 RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

changeidentifiedby Kroeber:addition,amalgamation, diffusion,absorption,


fusion.
Shils recognizesthat traditionsusuallyhave ideologicalcontent, and that
views of the past may be changedthroughself-conscious interpretation. He
notes(1981:195)thatthe "perceived"pastis "plastic"and"capableof being
retrospectivelyreformedby humanbeings living in the present."And he
recognizesthat nationalistmovementsoften changethe traditionsthey at-
temptto revive(1981:246).Nonetheless,he differentiates realand"fictitious"
traditionality (1981:209).He contrastsnationalistversions of tradition,forex-
ample, with "actuallyexistingsyncretic traditions" (1981:246).Shilsexplores
the breadthanddepthof the receivedunderstanding of tradition.Yet, asin the
works of priortheorists,traditionin Shils'sframeworkhas the qualitiesof
givennessand boundedness.In spite of Shils'sinsistencethat traditioncon-
tinuallychanges,there is no doubt that in his formulationa real, essential
traditionexists apartfrominterpretations of that tradition.
It is at thispointthatwe takeissuewith the naturalistic conceptionof tradi-
tion. We suggestthat thereis no essential,boundedtradition;traditionis a
modelof the pastandis inseparable fromthe interpretation of traditionin the
present.Undeniably,traditionalaction may refer to the past, but to "be
about"or to referto is a symbolicratherthannaturalrelationship, andas such
it is characterized by discontinuityas well as by continuity(Handler1984).It
is by now a truismthatculturalrevivalschangethe traditionsthey attemptto
revive(cf. Linton1943:231).We would broadenthis insightandarguethat
the inventionof traditionis not restrictedto such self-consciousprojects.
Rather, the ongoing reconstruction of traditionis a facet of all sociallife,
whichis not naturalbut symbolically constituted.Thisconclusionhasgrown
out of ouranalysesof nationalandethnicidentification in QuebecandHawaii.
These ethnographicmaterialsoffer a range of representations of tradition,
fromthe most self-conscious to the apparently unconscious, from the obvious-
ly reconstructive to thosethatseemto be naivelyinherited,andthereforegen-
uinely traditional.

CreatingTradition in Quebec
The statusof traditionin Quebeccanonlybe understood by referenceto the
ethnicoppositioncharacteristic of the areasincethe conquestof New France
by the Britishin 1760.The Conquestdoomed(thewordis obviouslyideologi-
callyweighted)French-speaking Quebecoisto minoritystatuswithinCanada,
which developedas a predominantly English-languageterritory.The signifi-
canceof this minoritystatuslies not in the oppositionalqualityof Quebecois
collectiveself-definition-afterall, most ethnicor nationalidentitiesarecon-
structedin oppositionto collectiveothers-but, rather,in its characteristic
defensiveness.Surrounded,as Quebecoissay, by a sea of anglophones,
ideologiesof collectiveidentityhavebeenconcerned,fromthe beginningsof
French-Canadian nationalism in the early19thcentury,to protectandpreserve
TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS 277

nationalcultureandtraditionsand, indeed,the existenceof the groupitself.


The relationshipin Quebecoisnationalistideologybetweenvisionsof the
nation,on the one hand,andof culture,tradition,andheritage,on the other,
is crucialto our thesis.Nationalismin Quebecis not a unitarysocialfact, and
nationalistideologieshave variedand proliferatedin relationto changing
historicalandsociopolitical circumstances (Dion 1975;Fenwick1981).Yet all
versionssharean understanding of the nation as a boundedentity whose
distinctivenessdependsupon nationalculture,tradition,and heritage.This
ideais, of course,deeplyingrainedin Westernsocialscienceas well as in na-
tionalistthought;collectiveunits,be they nations,cultures,or ethnicgroups,
are envisionedas consistingof all those individualhumanbeings, and only
those, who sharesufficienttraits, traditions,and valuesboth to bind them
sociallyandto distinguishthemculturallyfromoutsiders.Suchsharedfeatures
are thought to producea field of socialinteractionthat is integratedand a
culturaldistinctiveness characteristicboth of individualculture-bearers andof
the collectivity.In this ideologicalperspective,sharedcultureand traditions
establishthe nationas a boundedunit, creatingnationaldistinctiveness which
in turnbothdemonstrates andguarantees nationalexistence.As Quebecoisin-
formantsphrasedit, "we area nationbecausewe havea culture."
Thisindigenousinsightis centralto the analysisthatfollows,whichis based
uponfieldworkcarriedout between1976and 1983. This researchfocusedon
Quebecoisconceptionsof nationalidentity,with attentionbothto ideological-
ly self-conscious discourseandto the moreinformalperceptionsof peoplein
dailylife. As fieldworkprogressed it becameclearthatpeople'sunderstanding
of "nation" in relationto "culture," "tradition,"and "heritage"was a
crucialelementin theirconstructionof a nationalidentity.In theirdiscussions
they reliedupon a seriesof metaphorsthat establishnationalboundedness as
the boundedness of a naturalobject.Thesenaturalistic metaphorsareusedat
threelevelsof abstractionin referenceto: (1) the collectivityas an entity, a
"collectiveindividual,"as LouisDumonthascalledit (1970:33);(2) the col-
lectivity as a "collectionof individuals"(Dumont 1970:33);and (3) the
humanindividuals who, in theircapacityasculture-bearers, constitutethe col-
lectiveindividual.1 Metaphors of the collectiveindividualas a living creature
are commonboth in ideologicalpronouncements and in less self-conscious
discourse.For example,peoplespeakof nationalwill, soul, and destiny,or
speakof the nationas a tree, a knight, a peasant,andso on. Suchmetaphors
endow the nationwith the boundednessand integrityof an organism,sug-
gesting, in particular,the abilityto makepoliticalchoicesas a unifiedcollec-
tivity. Thus when Quebecoisspeakof the nationas a living creaturethey
createa rhetorically powerfulsenseof a completeandself-contained entityset
off equallyagainstits environment(in this case, the nationalterritory)and
other suchentities(othernations).
Envisioningthe nation as a collection of individuals,Quebecoishave
recourse to a second naturalistic metaphor, that of the national
species-"l'homo (Rioux 1974:3).In this metaphor,the nationis a
que'be&censis"
278 RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

naturaltype, or species, and each individualmemberof the nation is a


representative of the type. Thus, as a collectionof individualsthe nationis
precisely naturallyboundedin the way that a speciesis oftenimaginedto
and
be bounded,for it is constitutedby individualswho sharea set of traitsthat
definitivelyseparatethemfromothertypesof individuals.To imaginethe col-
lectivityas a specieseliminatesthe problemof fuzzy boundaries:peoplecan
claimthatanyindividualeitheris or is not a memberof the nation-is or is not
a "typicalQuebecois."Thereareno ambiguousor dividedaffiliations,andthe
nation, as a collectionof individuals,is as definitivelyboundedas a natural
species.
Finally,when peoplespeakof individualQuebecoisand attemptto define
what it is that constitutestheir "quebecitude,"they resortonce againto
naturalistic
metaphors.2 Theyfindit difficult,if not impossible,to describethe
group-based differences of individualsin preciseterms-how Quebecoisdiffer
fromAmericans,fromFrench,fromEskimos.Quebecoisseethemselvesasbe-
ing differentfrom the people of other nationsbecauseeach Quebecoisin-
dividual"possesses"Quebecoisculture,traditions,andheritage.Yet it is dif-
ficultformostpeopleto specifythe particular traitsthatdistinguishthemfrom
other nationaltypes. SpeakingFrench,for example,distinguishesQuebecois
fromotherNorth Americans,but in most otheraspectsof dailylife definitive
differencesareless easyto isolate.On the otherhand, speakingFrenchdoes
not distinguishQuebecoisfromotherfrancophones, which leadsto attempts
to isolatethe distinguishingcharacteristicsof QuebecoisFrench.Most people
canenunciatethe premisethatdifferences of cultureandtraditionsdistinguish
Quebecoisfrompeopleof othernations,but cannotspecifythe contentof na-
tionaldifferences in anydetail.In the absenceof suchspecification, theyoften
fallback,again,on naturalistic and
metaphors, speak of the "Latin blood" of
the Quebecois,or of the indelibleimprintthatbirthin a particular landleaves
on a person.In sum, if Quebecoisare different,it is due to substanceslike
bloodandland,andeventslikebirth,all of whichareconceivedto be natural.
We mightspeakhereof the naturalization of cultureandtradition:both are
"in the blood" of individuals,whose culturallyuniquetraditionsare thus
naturalto them. In similarfashion,the metaphorsof the nationas a living
creatureand as a naturalspeciesallow culture,tradition,and heritageto be
naturalized.When Quebecoisdiscussthe nationas thoughit were a person
with soul,will, anddestiny,theyspeakof its distinguishing asa
characteristics
"personality"that has been "fixed" in the (collective)individualduringa
processof personalgrowthandmaturation.Or, when Quebecoisimaginethe
nationas a species,they explainits specificcharacteristics in termsof natural
selectionand adaptation.Such rhetorictransformsnationalhistory into a
naturalhistoryin which an isolatedgroupof settlersbecame"fixed" in its
adaptationto the New World. Establishing both metaphorsallowspeopleto
claim that what has been fixed will not and cannotchange;a set of basic
dispositionsor traitsestablishesthe nationas an entityin relationto all other
nationalentities,andany futuredevelopments mustbuilduponthisbase.To
TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS 279

changethe basewoulddestroythe nationalentity,makingit somethingother


thanwhat it hasbeen. In sum, in the worldview of Quebecoisnationalists,it
is assumed that the nation has an essentialidentity, a core of fixed
that makesits existenceanalogousto that of a boundednatural
characteristics
object.
While the foregoingdiscussionof nationalistideology may seem either
abstruseor quaint,it is importantto realizethat suchdiscourseis basicto the
imagethat Quebecoisnationalistsentertainaboutthemselves.And this image
is not remotefrom everydayconsciousness,for nationalismhas consistently
been a prominentconcernfor Quebecoissincethe early19th century.Given
suchanideology,andthe defensivepostureof Quebecoiskeenlyawareof their
minoritystatusin NorthAmerica,therehaslong beena self-conscious concern
to preservenationalcultureandtraditions,or whatQuebecoiscalllepatrimoine
(heritage).As the historianMasonWadehas written,
Nowhere in North Americais the cult of the past strongerthan in FrenchCanada ... French
Canadahas a senseof tradition unique in North America, and the FrenchCanadianslive in and
on their past to a degree which it is difficult for English-speakingNorth Americans to ap-
preciate. [1968:1]

The cult of traditionfollowsunderstandably fromthe premisesof nationalist


ideology,but it suggestsa counter-intuitive interpretation:nationalculture
andtraditioncomeafterthe fact.Nationalistideologyrequiresthe existenceof
a culture-"we area nationbecausewe havea culture"-but mostpeopleare
hardput to specifythe traitsandtraditionsthatconstitutethatculture.It then
becomesthe businessof specialiststo discoverand even to invent national
culture,traditions,andheritage.
The inventionof tradition,typifiedduringthe late 1970sby widespread
concernfor le patrimoine, has been a prominentactivityin Quebecsincethe
mid-19thcentury(Handler1983a).Traditionis inventedbecauseit is neces-
sarily reconstructedin the present, notwithstandingsome participants'
understanding of suchactivitiesasbeingpreservation ratherthaninvention(cf.
For
Hymes1975:355-356). example, a common method for presentingtradi-
tion to the publicis the folkloredisplayor demonstration. At festivals,fairs,
and museums,folk dancesare performedand folk craftsexhibitedagainsta
backdroprepresenting the interiorof what is presentedas a traditionalfarm-
house. MariusBarbeau(1920:1-5)claimedto have organizedthe first such
performances in Canada.FollowingBritishand Frenchmodelsof folklore
demonstrations, Barbeauandhis colleaguespresentedtwo "publicsoirees"of
folkloreperformances in Montrealin 1919. Theirgoal was both to teachthe
urbanpublicaboutthe indigenousfolk sourcesof theircultureandto generate
support(financialandotherwise)forfolkloreresearch.Barbeau's description of
these soireesshows their conceptualization and stagingto havebeen nearly
identicalto performances witnessed60 yearslater.What hadchanged,how-
ever,by the 1970s,was the importantpresenceof governmentas a centralac-
280 RICHARDHANDLERandJOCELYNLINNEKIN

tor in the preservationof tradition. Since the early 1960s the government of
Quebec has devoted significantresourcesto the preservationof historic build-
ings, the creationof an inventory of patrimonialobjects and their collection in
museums, and more recently, to the promotion of St. Jean-Baptisteday as the
nationalholidayof Quebec and of a semainedupatrimoine (heritageweek) featur-
ing special museum exhibits, public school projects, and the like.
In his study of nationalism and folklore in Finland, Wilson (1976:120)
observesthat "celebrationsof folklore . . . became folklore ceremoniesthem-
selves, ritual dramasin which time was suspendedand modern Finns could
participatein the events of the past." This remark could be applied to the
Quebec case, but with an important clarification.The performersand spec-
tators at Quebecois folklore celebrations do not so much participate in a
preservedpast as they invent a new one. The public presentationof privatelife
is a juxtaposition that suggests why we must speak of invention ratherthan
preservation.First, those elements of the past selectedto representtraditional
culture are placedin contexts utterly differentfrom their prior, unmarkedset-
tings. A family party presented on stage, or a child's toy immured in a
museum, are not, in these new contexts, quite the same things that they were
in other settings;juxtaposed to other objects, enmeshedin new relationships
of meaning, they become something new. Second, these newly contextualized
pieces of tradition take on new meanings for the researchers,craft-workers,
dancers, spectators, and consumers who participate in folklore activities.
Reconstructedor reinterpretedas "tradition," they come to signify national
identity. Whoever dancedthose dancesor used those toys in the past did not
do so with a self-conscious awareness that such activity signified
"quebecitude." Finally, the invention of tradition is selective: only certain
items (most often, those that can be associated with a "natural," pre-
industrialvillage life) are chosen to representtraditionalnationalculture, and
other aspectsof the past are ignored or forgotten. In sum, traditionsthought
to be preservedare createdout of the conceptualneeds of the present. Tradi-
tion is not handeddown from the past, as a thing or collection of things; it is
symbolicallyreinventedin an ongoing present.
Nor are Quebecois unawareof these subtleties of reinterpretation.In 1978
the government brought together citizens and specialiststo reconsiderits ac-
tivities in the Place Royale project. The government had begun the historical
reconstructionof Place Royale (Quebec City) in the early 1960s. The project
became the largest of its kind in Quebec, and as it developed it encountered
growing criticism concerning the wisdom of transforming a residential
neighborhood into a museum for tourists. The 1978 colloquium debated the
various models of urban renewal and historical reconstructionthat had in-
fluenced the project. For example, some participantsfavoredrestorationsthat
would privilege the French colonial era to the exclusion of all other periods,
while others argued for recognition of the evolution of architecturalstyles.
Still others, citing the provisionalityof all historicalinterpretations,insisted
that restorationbe "reversible," so that future research,which might change
TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS 281

people'sunderstanding of the historyof the area,couldbe incorporated


into
the presentationof the site (Gouvernement du Quebec1979).
Explicitdiscussionsof how to preservetradition,as well as the commer-
cializationand stagingof folklore,might be takenas instancesof spurious
tradition,suchas thoserecognizedby Shilsin hisdiscussionof the "fictitious"
pastscreatedby nationalistideologuesat the expenseof "actuallyexistingsyn-
cretictraditions"(1981:209,246). Yet it is impossibleto separatespuriousand
genuinetradition,both empiricallyandtheoretically.In the Quebeccase,for
example,the work of folklorepopularizers is almostas traditionalas tradition
itself. Almost from the beginningof Europeancolonization,observershave
writtenaboutfolklife in Quebec,andtheirdescriptions havebecomeabsorbed
into the senseof identitythatthe folkentertainaboutthemselves.Folklorecol-
lectorshavebeenat workin FrenchCanadasincethe mid-19thcenturyat least
(Lacourciere 1961;Carpenter1979),andtheirwork too hasbeenthoroughly
disseminatedamongQuebecois,ruralas well as urban.Thus when the an-
thropologistHoraceMinerset out to describethe folk cultureof St. Denis, he
learnedthatit was not naivein the way somehadimagined:"I just got track
of a story-tellerin a neighboringparish,"he wrote RobertRedfieldfromthe
field, "andamarrangingto get someof his old tales,anythinghe hasnot got-
ten out of a book" (Miner1937).And MadeleineDoyon foundthatherrural
informantsarguedamong themselvesabout whose versionof a particular
dancewas "authentic"(1950:172).In sum,it is doubtfulthatQuebeceverex-
istedas a folk societyin whichtraditionswereunreflectively handeddown in
unchanging form (Handler1983a).
If genuine,naive,or pristinetraditionsaredifficultto discoverempirically,
theyareevenmoredifficulttojustifytheoretically. Thecreationof traditionin
Quebec, motivated as it is by nationalist ideology,points to the theoretical
flaws in the traditionalsocial-scientific understanding of traditionfor, like
socialscience,nationalistideologydependson the notionof societybounded
by objectivetradition,with both societyandtraditionunderstoodasobjectsor
setsof objectsin the naturalworld. In otherwords,the social-scientific model
of tradition, like the nationalistic,rests on a naturalisticand atomistic
paradigmin whichthoseaspectsof sociallife thatareconsidered traditionalare
endowedwith (or reducedto) the statusof naturalthings.But in ourview, to
posit a distinctionbetweengenuineandspurioustraditionsis to overlookthe
fact that sociallife is alwayssymbolicallyconstructed,nevernaturallygiven.
All handingdown, for example,dependsuponthe use of symbolsandis thus
continuouslyreinventedin the present.In the limitingcasewe mayunreflec-
tivelyperformsomeactionexactlyas we learnedit fromour parents;yet the
performance is nevercompletelyisomorphicwith pastperformances and,more
important, our understanding of the is a
performance present-tenseunder-
standing,generated from the context and meaningsof the present.To do
something because it is traditional is alreadyto reinterpret,and hence to
changeit.
282 RICHARDHANDLERandJOCELYNLINNEKIN

Traditionin ModernHawaii
It may seem paradoxicalto speak of tradition in modern Hawaii, the most
Westernized society in Polynesia. What links to the past could survivein this
land of McDonald's restaurantsand mass tourism? In the islands today, an-
thropologists and Hawaiiansalike are engaged in a quest for Hawaiian tradi-
tion, which is simultaneously a search for Hawaiian cultural identity. The
varying definitions of authenticity that have resulted from this pursuit reveal
that "traditional" is not an objective attribute of cultural practices, but a
designation that is always assigned in the present. Modern definitions of
Hawaiian traditionrange from the eclectic version promotedby Hawaiianna-
tionalists to the presumably more authentic life-style of small rural com-
munities. This discussion of Hawaiian tradition is based on fieldwork in
Keanae, a taro-growing village on the windward side of Maui that is widely
consideredto representtraditionalHawaiianlife. The nationalistexperienceis
a more obvious exampleof a traditionconstructedaccordingto the demandsof
ethnic politics, but the rurallife must be examined as a possible limiting case
for our thesis: a naively inherited, unselfconscioustradition, containing much
that is handed down from the past.
In searchof an authenticculturalidentity, nationalistmovements frequently
employ traditionto challengeratherthan to "ratify" (Williams 1977:116) the
social and political status quo. The Hawaiianculturalrevivallooks to ruralset-
tlements such as Keanaefor examplesof genuine tradition. The symbolicvalue
of such communities is enhanced because most Hawaiians today are city-
dwellers with more than their shareof socialproblems(Howard 1974:x). The
currentconception of Hawaiian identity does not dependupon biological des-
cent, but is based on the premise of a sharedbody of customs handeddown
from the past. Yet for most Hawaiians, alienatedfrom the land and the rural
life-style, the content of that traditionhas been problematic.Becauseof a long
history of intermarriagewith other ethnic groups, very few Hawaiians can
claim "pure" Hawaiian ancestry. And until the culturalrevival, few but the
elderly were fluent in the Hawaiian language. Hawaiian nationalismbegan as
an urban movement in the late 1960s, primarily attracting young part-
Hawaiians, and following models establishedin Americanethnic politics. The
nationalistshave explicitly linked their struggle to that of other colonized and
dispossessed peoples: Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Micronesians
(Protect Kaho'olawe 'Ohana 1981:17).
The focal symbols of Hawaiian nationalism have varying relationshipsto
past cultural practices. Initially emphasizing the Hawaiian language and
Hawaiiana, a selection of crafts and performancearts, the culturalrenaissance
came to focus on tradition as representedby the life-style of ruralHawaiians.
Politically, the movement has focused on the land, the 'aina,3and demanded
reparationsfor the lands that commoner Hawaiians lost in the last century.
The taro plant, source of the staplepoi,4 is featuredprominentlyin the move-
ment's publications. The archetypeof the despoiled Hawaiian landscapehas
TRADITION,GENUINEOR SPURIOUS 283

becomethe barren,uninhabited islandof Kahoolawe,usedfor navalbombing


practicesince World War II. Protestors haveoccupiedthe islandseveraltimes,
asserting on the basis of folk legends that it is sacredground.Historically,
Kahoolawe'sclaimto sacredness is tenuous.Earlysourcesportraythe islandas
a desolateandinhospitableplace;it was a penalcolonyin the early19thcen-
tury (Kuykendall1938:125-126),andwas laterleasedas a cattleranchuntil
confiscatedfor use as a bombingtarget(Ritte andSawyer1978:113).It is not
the facts of Kahoolawe'shistorythat have imbuedit with its present-day
meaningas a politicaland culturalsymbol.Kahoolawehas becomethe em-
bodimentof the Hawaiianland. As such its significancefor Hawaiiansis
undeniable, but thismeaningderivesfromthe moderncontext,eventhoughit
makesreferenceto an idealizedpast (Linnekin1983).
Anotherfocusof Hawaiiannationalism was the voyageof the double-hulled
canoeHokule'afromHawaiito Tahitiin 1976. Althoughconceivedby haole
(white)scholarsas a test of the accidental voyagingtheoryof Polynesiansettle-
ment, the projectwas embracedby the Hawaiianculturalrevivalas a celebra-
tion of Hawaiianidentity. The canoe'sdesigner,Herb Kane, was a half-
Hawaiianwho was broughtup and educatedin the Midwest,and only re-
turnedto Hawaii in 1972 (Finney1979:21).Yet he identifiedhis "home
valley"as Waipioon the islandof Hawaii(Kane1976:475),thusconsciously
linkinghimselfto anancientsettlementareathat,likeKeanae,is recognizedas
a strongholdof Hawaiiantradition.Kaneproclaimed thatthe voyagingcanoe
was "the centralartifactof Polynesian culture"(Finney1979:29),andin a Na-
tionalGeographic article(Kane1976),portrayedthe Hokule'a'svoyageas the
reenactment of a time-honored Hawaiiantradition.Thecanoe'slaunchingwas
markedby carefullyresearched ceremoniesthat attemptedto recreateancient
Hawaiianrites;anthropologists fromthe BerniceP. BishopMuseumwereon
handto validatethe authenticityof the proceedings. One Hawaiianparticipant
wore a full-headgourdmaskcopiedfroma 1779engravingby JohnWebber,
the artist who sailedwith CaptainCook (Kane 1976:472).A kava circle
modeledon the kavaritualof Samoawas incorporated into laterceremonies
(Finney1979:31). Hawaiians drank the mildlyintoxicating'awa,5 but theydid
not make a socialceremonyof consumingit, as did Fijiansand Samoans.
Kane'sarticleportrayssucha ritual,usinga largeFijianor Samoankavabowl,
with a captionbeginning"In ritesunpracticed for generations. ..."
The aboveexamplesdemonstratethat nationalistversionsof traditionare
selectiveandmaybe consciouslyshapedto promotesolidarityin the present.Is
therea moregenuine,unselfconscious Hawaiiantraditionto be foundin the
islands?Islandersof all nationalities believethat traditionalHawaiianculture
survivesin a few remotecommunitieson Maui,Niihau,Molokai,andin Kona
on the island of Hawaii. The residentsidentify themselvesas kama'aina,
"childrenof the land," the descendants of the commonpeople,anddescribea
life basedon fish and poi, the traditionalstaples.Keanaeis one of the few
placesin the islandswhereHawaiianshaveretainedownershipof landandstill
grow taro.In manyways, of course,Keanae'straditionality is superficial.
No
284 RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

one subsistssolelyon fish andpoi; most householders havefull-timesalaried


jobs andgrow tarofor the marketas a supplementary source of income.Rice
has supplantedpoi as the most commonlyservedstaple,and some elderly
residentswho havegivenup tarofarmingeatpoi no moreoftenthana resident
of Honolulu.Nevertheless,for Hawaiians,Keanaerepresents life "in the real
old style," and an integralculturalidentity.
When Keanaevillagersdifferentiatetheir lifestylefrom that of outsiders,
they speakof fish andpoi, andthe practiceof exchange-in-kind ("In Keanae,
as
you give, don't sell") opposed to the impersonal,commercial transactions
carriedon in town. Andit is truethatexchange-in-kind aspracticedin Keanae
bearsstrikingresemblanceto the forms of gift giving describedby Marcel
Mauss(1967) for "archaic"societies.Interpersonal relationshipsare played
out in cycles of reciprocityinvolvingPolynesian commodities: pork, fish,
bananas,service(see Linnekin1984). For villagersand outsidersalike, the
most dramaticenactmentof traditionin Keanaeis the luau,the Hawaiian
redistributivefeast. The luau is today understoodas a quintessentially
Hawaiianactivity,andKeanaeis knownas a placewherepeopleknow how to
"make a luau" properly.A luau entailsthe preparation, consumption,and
of
givingaway largequantities of food. Work parties familyandfriendsare
of
occupiedfor severaldays advance,preparingdishesthattheyconsiderto be
in
traditionaland distinctivelyHawaiian.The accountsof Kamakau(1964:13,
96-98) andMalo(1951:87-88,151-153, 157-158)revealthat luaufoods are
indeedhistoricallyrelatedto pre-Christian practices.Manyof today'sconven-
tional luau dishes recreatethe standardritual offeringsof the Hawaiian
religion,whichwas abolishedin 1819:kaluapig, roastedin the underground
oven, andkulolo,taro-coconutpudding,areexamples.The most popularfood
used to compensateluau workersis laulaus,steamedbundlesof greensand
eitherpork or beef, wrappedin ti (cordyline)leaves.Offeringsmadeto the
gods were similarlywrappedin ti leaves.
Manyof the foodsthatweight today'sluautablesarethusdemonstrably re-
latedto pastpractices.In the Hawaiianreligion,redwas a rituallyhigh color.
One of the conventionalofferingsto the godswas the kumu,a redfish. K-um-u
is not servedat luaustoday,but a luauwould not be completewithout lomi-
lomisalmon."Lomi" salmonis madefromthe red fleshof imported,salted
salmon,massagedbetweenthe fingersandmixedwith tomatoes,crushedice,
andgreenonions.All theseingredientsareforeignintroductions; certainlythe
ice is relativelyrecent.Very few modernHawaiiansareawarethat lomi sal-
mon is probablya surrogatefor the kiumufish; indeed,for Hawaiianstoday
is irrelevant,andlomi salmonis just as traditional,
this historicalrelationship
just as meaningful,as kulolo or laulaus.A luauis also markedby slack-key
guitar and ukuleleplaying. Both representintroducedmusicalstyles, but
islandersof all nationalitiesrecognize these activitiesas characteristically
Hawaiian.
The luauis certainlya candidatefor an objectivelydefinable,inheritedtradi-
tion. But KeanaeHawaiiansarenot naiveaboutthe luau'ssignificance; they
TRADITION,GENUINEOR SPURIOUS 285

tie laulausby splittingthe stem of the cordylinebecauseit is definitively


Hawaiianto do so. Theyarenot evennaiveaboutexchange-in-kind, a practice
that perhapsmost closelyapproximates an unselfconscious heritage.Keanae
villagersare not unawareof their statusas upholders of Hawaiian tradition;
most have chosena life that they perceiveas traditional.This identityhas
developedoverat leastthe pasthundredyearsthroughan ongoinginteraction
with the largersociety. The windwardareasof the islandswere calledthe
kua'ainaor "backland." A secondarymeaningfor this term is "ignorant,
uninstructed people. . . the back-woodspeople"(Andrews1865:296).Early
missionariessimilarlyviewed the Keanaeregion as backwardand prone to
recidivism.Inaccessible by landuntil the late 1920swhen the statehighway
was completed,the remotewindwardcoast of Maui attractedearly travel
writers,who sawit as "picturesque"(Ayres1910;Hardy1895).Morerecent-
ly, a Honolulujournalistin searchof the traditionalHawaiianlife-style
publisheda storyon Keanaeas "the Hawaiithat usedto be" (Lueras1975).
The communityis noted on touristmapsas an officialattraction;a Hawaii
VisitorsBureaumarkerused to stand alongsidethe highway overlooking
Keanaewith the legend, "Hawaiianvillage."
The largersociety'snotionsof traditionandculturalidentitythus become
partof the ruralcommunity'sself-image.And this influenceis not restricted
to the modernera, when nationalists,tourists,and politicalleaderstend to
idealizethe rural"folk." The evolutionof Keanae'straditional identitycanbe
tracedat leastto the early19thcentury,andthe development of a country/city
opposition-a contrast thatis today embodied in the useof the terms
villagers'
"inside" and "outside" to differentiatethe rural countryside,inhabited
primarilyby Hawaiians,fromthe townswherewhitesandOrientalspredom-
inate.In the historicalinterchange betweenKeanaeandthe largersociety,the
mostimportantrecentdevelopmenthasbeenthe positivevalueattachedto the
term "traditional,"which now connotespurityandauthenticityratherthan
rural ignorance.Although the content of the categoricaloppositionshas
alteredover time, it is unlikelythat Keanaevillagerswere everpristineand
unselfconscious, thatis, thattheyeverfailedto interprettheiridentityin terms
of a widersocialcontext.Todaytarogrowingandexchange-in-kind areobjec-
tified as they areused to definethe Hawaiianidentity.Thesepracticeshave
becomea meansby whichmodernHawaiiansdifferentiate themselvesfromthe
islands'otherethnicgroups.
Seeminglydisparate versionsof Hawaiiantradition-the nationalistandthe
rural-convergein Hawaiitoday.The two imagesinfluenceone another;both
variantscontainelementsof inventionandconsciousconstructionas well as
correspondences to previousHawaiianpractices.Traditionis never wholly
unselfconscious, is it ever wholly unrelatedto the past. The opposition
nor
betweena naivelyinheritedtraditionandone that is consciouslyshapedis a
false dichotomy.Traditionalactivitieslike preparinglaulausor buildingan
underground ovenmayhaveaffinitieswith thepastthata scholarcandiscover,
but they need not. The crucialpoint for our purposesis that theirvalueas
286 RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

traditionalsymbolsdoes not dependupon an objectiverelationto the past.


Like the kavaceremonyin the voyagingcanoe'slaunchingrites, traditional
practicesmaybe recentlyborrowed.The scholarmayobjectthatsuchcustoms
arenot genuinelytraditional,but theyhaveas muchforceandas muchmean-
ing for theirmodernpractitioners as otherculturalartifactsthatcanbe traced
directlyto the past.The originof culturalpracticesis largelyirrelevantto the
experienceof tradition;authenticityis alwaysdefinedin the present.It is not
pastnessor givennessthatdefinessomethingastraditional.Rather,thelatteris
an arbitrarysymbolicdesignation;an assignedmeaningratherthanan objec-
tive quality.

Conclusion
We havearguedthat the dominantsocial-scientific understanding of tradi-
tion is built upon a naturalisticmetaphor.Although some would restrict
the
of to
persuasiveness metaphor poeticlanguage, its rhetorical forcecan sway
scientificdiscourseas well. The prevailingconceptionof tradition,both in
commonsenseandin socialtheory,hasenvisionedan isolablebodyor coreof
unchangingtraitshandeddownfromthe past.Traditionis likenedto a natural
object,occupyingspace,enduringin time, andhavinga molecularstructure.
Society,sinceit is definedby a distinctivetradition,is similarlymodeledaftera
naturalobject-bounded,discrete,andobjectivelyknowable.Thisnaturalistic
view of tradition,and of societyas constitutedby tradition,has dominated
Westernsocialthoughtat leastsincethe timeof EdmundBurke,who was the
first moderntheoristof tradition.In his attackon the FrenchRevolution,
Burkelikenedboth the stateandsocietyto an "antientedifice,"a "nobleand
venerablecastle"(1968:106,121)which couldbe repeatedlyrenovatedto re-
mainforeverthe same.Accordingto Burke,the Frenchrevolutionaries had
actedunnaturally by destroying ratherthan and
preserving reforming. In con-
trast,Englishreformersadheredto "the methodof naturein the conductof
the state";theyrespected"the modeof existencedecreedto a permanent body
of
composed transitoryparts"(1968:120). Like the work of latertheorists of
tradition,Burke'sdiscussionis dominatedby theideaof anobject-as concrete
as a castle,as naturalas a body-that changesincessantly yet nonethelessmain-
tains an essential identity.
Against the naturalisticparadigm,which presumesboundednessand es-
sence,we arguethat traditionis a symbolicprocess:that "traditional"is not
an objectivepropertyof phenomena but an assignedmeaning.Whenwe insist
that the pastis alwaysconstructedin the present,we arenot suggestingthat
present-day actsandideashaveno correspondence to the past. But we argue
that the relationof prior to unfoldingrepresentations can be equallywell
termeddiscontinuous ascontinuous.Ongoingculturalrepresentations referto
or takeaccountof priorrepresentations, and in this sensethe present con-
has
tinuity with the past. But this continuityof referenceis constructedin the
present,and,asHerzfeld(1982:3)hasarguedin his accountof nationalism and
TRADITION, GENUINE OR SPURIOUS 287

folklore in Greece, the constructionof continuity is never "a question of pure


fact." Rather, the establishmentof continuity dependson "the observer's. . .
presuppositions. . . about what traits really constitute acceptable. . . evi-
dence for some sort of link." On the other hand, becausecontinuity is con-
structed, it includes an element of discontinuity. To refer to the past, to take
account of or interpretit, implies that one is located in the present, that one is
distancedor apartfrom the object reconstructed.In sum, the relationshipof
prior to present representationsis symbolicallymediated, not naturallygiven;
it encompassesboth continuity and discontinuity. Thus we can no longer
speakof traditionin terms of the approximateidentity of some objectivething
that changeswhile remainingthe same. Instead,we must understandtradition
as a symbolic process that both presupposespast symbolisms and creatively
reinterpretsthem. In other words, traditionis not a bounded entity made up
of bounded constituent parts, but a process of interpretation, attributing
meaning in the present though making referenceto the past.
To speakof traditionas a processbrings us close to the approachof Hymes
and before him, to that of Sapir. Sapir'sdiscussion (1949) of genuine culture
bears romantic overtones akin to those that motivate discussionsof genuine
tradition as pristine folkways. But Sapir'snotion of genuinenessrefers to the
possibilityof creativity.6Genuineculturesprovideindividualsboth with a rich
corpus of pre-established(traditional) forms and with the opportunity to
"swing free" (1949:322) in creativeendeavorsthat inevitablytransformthose
forms. For Sapir,genuine culture has a dialecticalquality, for it embodies the
seeds of its own transformation.Similarly, Hymes (1975:353-355) speaksof
"a universaldialectic between the need to traditionalizeand other forces in
social life" (those that he terms "situation" and "creativity"). Hymes
chooses the term "traditionalization"to purge the concept of traditionof its
static, naturalisticimplications. For Hymes, as for us, it is best to think of
tradition as a process that involves continual re-creation.
This understandingof traditionimplies that society, commonly perceivedas
the largest unit of social reality, is, like tradition, a meaningfulprocessrather
than a bounded object. Socialidentity is always formulatedin interactionwith
others, and depends upon evolving distinctions between categories that are
symbolicallyconstituted, a processthat Singer (1972:12) has dubbed "conver-
sationsof images." Shils's "British society" is not an objectivelyascertainable
entity but an attributionof identity. The Western ideology of tradition, with
its correlativeassumptionof unique culturalidentity, has become an interna-
tional political model that people all over the globe use to construct images of
others and of themselves. In Quebec, patrimonialtraditions, self-consciously
constructedby both indigenousand foreign observers,havebecome an integral
component of the sense of national identity that Quebecois entertain about
themselves. In Hawaii, the largersociety perceivesthe rurallife-style as a mir-
ror of the Hawaiianpast, and country-dwellersin turn attributea new, tradi-
tional signification to previously unmarkedpractices. In both cases, the self-
image of ruralvillagersdevelopsthrough a dialoguewith a varietyof tradition-
288 RICHARD HANDLER andJOCELYN LINNEKIN

seekers, ranging from romanticjournalists to urban nationalists,not to men-


tion social scientists. One of the majorparadoxesof the ideology of traditionis
that attempts at cultural preservationinevitably alter, reconstruct, or invent
the traditionsthat they are intended to fix. Traditionsare neither genuine nor
spurious, for if genuine traditionrefersto the pristineand immutableheritage
of the past, then all genuine traditionsare spurious.But if, as we have argued,
traditionis always definedin the present, then all spurioustraditionsaregenu-
ine. Genuine and spurious-terms that have been used to distinguishobjective
reality from hocus-pocus-are inappropriatewhen applied to social phenom-
ena, which never exist apartfrom our interpretationsof them.

Notes
We would like to thank Richard Bauman, Aletta Biersack, Daniel Segal, and Leo Van Hoey for pro-
viding valuable criticisms of earlierdrafts of this paper. Research in Quebec was funded in part by grants
from the Danforth Foundation, Lake Forest College, and the University Consortium for Research on
North America. Fieldwork in Hawaii from 1974 to 1975 was supported by a grant from the National
Science Foundation (GS-39667) and a predoctoraltraining fellowship from the National Institute of Men-
tal Health.
1 Dumont's discussion of the cultural presuppositionsthat interrelatenationalism and individualismin

modern Western culture is central to the analysis of nationalist ideology presented here. According to
Dumont, "the nation is the normal form of the global society in the individualisticuniverse. That is to
say, it is in principletwo things at once: a collectionof individualsand a collectiveindividual"(1970:33; em-
phasis in original). It is important to understandthat Dumont is here referringto indigenous conceptions
of what a nation is; he is not offering a scientific definition.
2 The idea of "quebecitude" was influenced by the celebration of "negritude" on the part of French-

language West Indian and African writers during the 1940s. As we argue below, such borrowings sug-
gest that the self-imagesof national and ethnic groups around the world develop through mutual interac-
tion; rather than isolated groups whose identity stems from particularhistorical experiences, we find an
international sociopolitical discourse, shared by those who use it to proclaim their uniqueness.
3Diacritics and glosses for Hawaiian words are taken from Pukui and Elbert (1971).
4
Poi is a paste made by boiling and grinding the root of the taro plant.
5 Known as kava in other Polynesian societies, 'awais Pipermethysticum, a shrub related to pepper and
native to the Pacific islands. The beverage is made from the root.
6
Sapir's use of the term "genuine" to indicate creative possibilities must be carefully distinguished
from the more common understanding of genuine as meaning uncorrupted and pristine (cf. Handler
1983b). The notion of a genuine tradition attackedin this paper stems from the second concept of genu-
ineness, not from Sapir's.

ReferencesCited
Andrews, Lorrin
1865 A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language. Honolulu: Henry M. Whitney.
Ayres, H. M.
1910 Through the Hana District of Maui. Honolulu Advertiser, 4 September, Sec. 2:1, 5.
Barbeau, Marius
1920 Veillees du bon vieux temps. Montreal: G. Ducharme.
Burke, Edmund
1968 Reflections on the Revolution in France. New York: Penguin Books.
TRADITION,GENUINEOR SPURIOUS 289

Carpenter, C.
1979 Many Voices: A Study of Folklore Activities in Canadaand Their Role in Canadian
Culture. Ottawa: CanadianCentre for Folk Culture Studies, Paper No. 26.
Dion, Leon
1975 Nationalismes et politique au Quebec. Montreal: Hurtubise HMH.
Doyon, Madeleine
1950 Folk Dances in Beauce County. Journal of American Folklore 63:171-174.
Dumont, Louis
1970 Religion, Politics, and Society in the IndividualisticUniverse. Proceedings of the
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, pp. 31-45.
Eisenstadt, S. N.
1973 Tradition, Change, and Modernity. New York: Wiley.
Fenwick, Rudy
1981 Social Change and Ethnic Nationalism: An Historical Analysis of the Separatist
Movement in Quebec. Comparative Studies in Society and History 23:196-216.
Finney, Ben R.
1979 Hokule'a: The Way to Tahiti. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Gouvernement du Quebec
1979 Colloque Place Royale, 16-17-18 novembre 1978: Les actes du Colloque. Quebec
City: Ministere des affairesculturelles.
Handler, Richard
1983a In Searchof the Folk Society: Nationalism and Folklore Studiesin Quebec. Culture
3(1):103-114.
1983b The Dainty and the Hungry Man: Literatureand Anthropology in the Work of
Edward Sapir. In Observers Observed: Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork, ed. George
Stocking, pp. 208-231. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
1984 On Sociocultural Discontinuity: Nationalism and Cultural Objectification in
Quebec. Current Anthropology 25:55-71.
Hardy, F. W.
1895 PicturesqueMaui. Paradiseof the Pacific 8(7):97-98.
Herzfeld, Michael
1982 Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the Making of Modern Greece. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Howard, Alan
1974 Ain't No Big Thing. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Hymes, Dell
1975 Folklore's Nature and the Sun's Myth. Journal of American Folklore 88:345-369.
Kamakau, Samuel M.
1964 Ka Po'e Kahiko: The People of Old. Edited by Dorothy B. Barrere. Honolulu:
Bishop Museum Press.
Kane, Herb Kawainui
1976 A Canoe Helps Hawaii Recapture Her Past. National Geographic 149:468-489.
Kroeber, A. L.
1948 Anthropology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Kuykendall, Ralph S.
1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1778-1854. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Lacourciere,Luc
1961 The PresentState of French-CanadianFolklore Studies.Journalof AmericanFolklore
74:373-382.
Linnekin, Jocelyn
1983 Defining Tradition: Variations on the Hawaiian Identity. American Ethnologist
10:241-252.
1984 Children of the Land: Exchange and Status in a Hawaiian Community. New Bruns-
wick: Rutgers University Press.
290 RICHARDHANDLERandJOCELYNLINNEKIN

Linton, Ralph
1943 Nativistic Movements. American Anthropologist 45:230-240.
Lueras, Leonard
1975 Keanae: The Hawaii That Used to Be. Honolulu Advertiser, 18 December:A3.
Malo, David
1951 Hawaiian Antiquities. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Mannheim, Karl
1953 Conservative Thought. In Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology, ed. Paul
Kecskemeti, pp. 74-164. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mauss, Marcel
1967 The Gift. Translatedby Ian Cunnison. New York: Norton.
Miner, Horace
1937 Letter to Robert Redfield, 20 January. Redfield papers. Regenstein Library, The
University of Chicago.
Protect Kaho'olawe 'Ohana
1981 Aloha 'Aina (newsletter). Winter. Kaunakakai,Molokai.
Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert
1971 Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English, English-Hawaiian. Honolulu: University
Press of Hawaii.
Rioux, Marcel
1974 Les Qu6becois. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Ritte, Walter, Jr., and Richard Sawyer
1978 Na Mana'o Aloha o Kaho'olawe. Honolulu: Aloha 'Aina o na Kiupuna,Inc.
Rudolph, Lloyd I., and Susanne H. Rudolph
1967 The Modernity of Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sapir, Edward
1949 Culture, Genuine and Spurious. In Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, ed. David
Mandelbaum, pp. 308-331. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schneider, David M.
1968 American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shils, Edward
1971 Tradition. Comparative Studies in Society and History 13:122-159.
1981 Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Singer, Milton
1972 When a Great Tradition Modernizes. New York: Praeger.
Smith, M. Estellie
1982 The Process of SocioculturalContinuity. Current Anthropology 23:127-141.
Tipps, Dean C.
1973 Modernization Theory and the ComparativeStudy of Societies: A Critical Perspec-
tive. ComparativeStudies in Society and History 15:199-226.
Wade, Mason
1968 The French Canadians, 1760-1967. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips
1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Williams, Raymond
1977 Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, William A.
1976 Folklore and Nationalism in Modern Finland. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.

Lake ForestCollege
Lake Forest,Illinois

You might also like