DMMATIC @STL]RES:

II{E FIJI INDIAN PA!{CAYAITAS TIIERAPETITIC DISCOURSE

Donald Brenneis

I. Introduction

Central to the ethnographic study of discourse is an interest in

the relationships between participants in speech events and the
ccnrm:nicative forrns characteristic of ttpse events. In this paper I
explore one particular aspect of the role of participants. I am
concerned with the local theories in terms of wtrich speakers and
hearers not only rnake sense of speech events but al-so shape their
experience of those enrents, i.e., ho'v they are taken to "feel ." l'ty
discussion is inforned by relatively recent orplorations of the active
role of audiences in discrcr:rse (Duranti and Brenneis 1985); if, as
Dwanti (1986: 243) argues, rrevery act of speaking is directed to and
must be ratified by an audiencer " the prenises on which such
ratifications are based must be o<amined. Such prenises are unlikely
to be solely interpretive, i.e., concerned with issues of neaning in
the strict sense. Ttrey also draw rpon participantsr aesthetic
notions, on local theories of coherence, beauty and effectiveness.
The follcning discussion presents an acclcunt of one pa.rticular variety
of speech event in a particular speech crrnnunity. Ttre underlying
guestion is one of the effectiveness of speech; hol is crcmrmnicative
form related not so nmch to speakersr intentions as to the
underst-andings ntrich listeners bring to different varieties of
discourse?

This paper analyzes the pancavat, a public event for the nediation
of disputes in Bhatgaon, a Fiji Indian ocnmr:nity. Although pancayats
are held quite infrequently, they are regarded by Bhatgaon villagers
as the definitive Indian occasion for the amicable settlenent of
conflict.l Ttre pancayat, 'council of fiver' has a long history in
India as both a crcnflict-rnanaging and decision-rnaking institution but
has assumed a very d-ifferent form in Fiji, as will be evident belor.z
Hq'Jttte fnncayat rt\,.lpgksrt in Bhatgaon depends in large part, I will
€u9u€, on several Indian aesthetic and psychological notions
introduced to and reinterpreted in the Fijian contoct. Ihese
underlying notions differentiate the constrrrction and furplications of
pancayat frcn, on the one hand, !€stern notions of therapeutic events
and, on the other, frcrn scne of the traditional theories of srptions
andtherapy suggested for the Pacific by Lutz (1983), Ito (1985) and
lihite (1979, n.d. ).

IPRAPapers in Pz'agmatics L, No.l(19S7) , 55-78

i

i
I
I
i
I
I

II
I
I
I
tI
n
 Gibbs' article, "The l(pelle [tk)ot" (1963), is inportant here in
two res.oects. First, it is a lqq_qs classicus for the description and
interpretation of nnots and otGFlr-r6tE nedlation occasions, of
considerable irportance in the develc6nrent of legal anthropology.
Second, it provides a clear if general statenent of an irnportant
Western theory of therapeutic events. Drawing upon Parsonsf (1951)
characterization, Gibhs cites four elenents of hbstern psychotherapy:
su5rtrnrt, permissiveness, denial of reciprocity and manipulation of
rs*ards (1963: 284). Gibbs argues that these four elerents are also
present in the Kpelle nrrot or house 6:alaver, a public discussion and
resolution of cronflict prirnarily within households or betroeen
neighbors. The rncot is supportive; it is culturally defined as a
valued and beneficial event. Ore can discuss a wide range of events
and issues within the nr:ot and be very arotionally exg:ressive without
fear of revenge or anger in response. Finally, the audience for the
nrcot provides not only a synpathetic hearing but very real rq*ards as
well; reaching accord is a warrant of fu1l participation in the life
of the local curmunity.

Perhaps centraL to a consideration of the theory of therapeutic

talk jrlplicit in Gibhs' nndel are his second and third elanents, the
perrnissiveness or "anything goes" quality of rrcot discourse and the
lafety fron angry response-wtiich makes il possible.3 "Permissiveness
in the therapeutie setting (and in the noot)r" he arg'ues (1963: 285\,
"results in catharsis, in a high degree of stimulation of feelings in
the participants, and an egually high tendenry to verbalize those
feelings." 66nrt frcrn those etiological insights wlrich the session
might afford, hcrr those insights are reached, i.e., in aptrnrently
r:nrestrained orpression, is central to the therapeutic ortrnrience. As
Labov and FansheL (L977 ) note, "It had been observed many tines that
the (therapeutic) interview is sirmrltaneously a diagnostic device and
the nethod of therapy. " l{hile arpirical studies of both therapeutic
conversation and rediation sessions dsncnstrate that this freer*reeling
quality is often rrore appearance than fact-that successful events
involve careful if indirect guidance-the underlying notion that
catharsis, a purging or cleansing of troubling snctions through their
identification and e:<pression, is a critical elsrent rgnains central
in rnany !€stern theories.

ltre term catharsis is at present priimrily used in psychological

conto<ts, h:t its first major use, aSrart frcm the literal neaning of
cleansing or purification, is by Aristotle in the ryics. Although
it is unilear- e><actly wtrat Arislotle nreant by the term;Te argn:es that
catharsis is a critical aesthetic elenent in tragedy. As literature
professors rather than classicists generally understand the term,
nAristotle appears to wish to put tte ernctions of fear and pity into
his audience, to 'cleanse. I A real enptional transforrnation, a real
orperience is intended" (Gercn L9742 133 ). Drafia rtorks through the
catalyzing and purging of strong srotions in the individr:al spectator.
Therapy, by analogy, r,rcrks in part through the similar processes of
orpression and cleansing, although the srotions are located in oneself
rather ttnn in a play. Aesthetic and therapeutic nndels are closely
intertr*ined.

Whether Gibbs' discr.ussion accurately reflects wtrat the l{pelle

thsmelves saw in the nrct, his article rernains a fair
characterization of a l{estern nrcdel of therapy. It also reflect-s a
us"ally unsSnken prenise shared by rnany anthropologists. ltris is the
notion tlrat a wide range of conflict rnanagenent events-fran the
Eskinc song duel to an Anrerican's "day in courtrr-are effective in
large part because they affor6 in6ielflrrls positively sanctioned
opportunities for enctional exSrression and release. I{hat is striking
about the pancalat is that, in regard to srotional erpression, it is
very unlike the iQelle nrcot. Ttre pancarrat se€rns concerned not with
snrtion but with qr.estions of fact and is highl"y decorous, restrained
and subject to very narrcrr relevance rufes. The pancatat is, trolever,
crcnsidered by Fiji Indians to be a very porerful ecasion for seial
rcnding, for retrniring damaged interpersonal relations and restoring
atnity. the centraL guestions addressed in this paper are, first, rrhat
Lhe salient features of pancayat as cqnrnrnicative events are and lro'l
they are related to conditions of Indian life in Fiji; and, second,
hclll the pancavat "r,ncrks, " tpw it effects ttre therapeutic results
clainBd for it.

!11rans*er to ttre first question, that of the relationship between

social and cqnnr:nicative forms, is nrethodologicaUy ralher
straightfonrard, although fairly ccnplicated in its details. Itre
discussion is rooted firmly in ttre ethnography of speaking tradition
and follorrs directly my earlier ocnsiderations of other discourse
genres in Bhratgaon (see, for er<anple, Brenneis 1978, 1984; Ivtyers and
Brenneis 1984).

the second question is rmrch rnore problenatic, as it raises a

rarqe of theoretical and nethodological issues. Gre problem is a
definitional one: hcn is therapy to be defined, and for wtrcrn or rr*rat
is it intended? A.s wil-I beclqre evident in ttre discussion belcn, the
problem to be rqedied is located neither in an individual nor in ttre
relationship betlreen conflicting parties alone. Ttre pancalat mr:st
affect a broader village public as rrell as those innediately involved;
disputants and ar:dience alike mr:st be satisfied. A practical
5B

resolution alone is insufficient. A,s one rnan declared dr:ring the

pancayat_ described belcrrr, "Ttre 5nlitical *ork is finished; religious
work is ranaining." In this "religious r^Drk" are entwined ethics,
aesthetics and ethnopsychology.

As an ethnopsychological enterprise, the pancavat stands in

rnarked ccntrast to those characteristic features suggested by Gibbs.
In fact, the tnncalatrs effects on individr:al-s do not figure greatly
in villagers' discussions. Ilcr.rever they may actually perceive their
rrorld. Bhatgaon villagers rarely talk about it in terms of a lnrsonal
self.a The pancalat is said to lead not to the stirnrlation and
release of individr:al feelings but to a shared e:<;:erience of scne
sort. Tlrese local theories rest u5nn an ultimately dramatic ncdel,
one drawn frqn Sanskritic poetics rather than those of Aristotle.

To claim that villagers share these ideas is not to irply that

their theories are clearly or systsnatically articulated. They are,
rather, vJhat I rrould call "gnrtial theoriesr" drawing upon orally
transmitted beliefs, the sqnantic resources and constraints of Fiji
Hindi, and local interpretations of classical Hindu notions introduced
to Fiji in published religious texts. F\rrther, they are nost fully
orpressed not in ordinary discourse b:t in ethnographic intervierrs, a
kind of event often leading to greater clarity arrd coherence than
observations of everlzday village life might suggest. Tttis paper draws
upon field notes, intervierp data, and rry cnrn interpretations, tested
and refined through crcntinuing discussions with nqr village crclleagrues.
Ttle final product, trchrever, rernains my responsibility.

After a brief discussion of the historic and ocnterporary

situation of Bfrratgaon, I describe in detail one [nncayat and the
events leading to it in "The Case of the Rrrported Profanities." I
then o<anine salient social and Gcm[unicative features of Bhatgaon as
a crmmuity and nrrve to the characteristics of the pancayat as a
speech event. In the final section I e:<plore Fiji Indian snctional
notions and their ilplications for an understanding of hcr,r the
pancalat rrorks.

2. Blntgaon: A Fiji Indian Ccnrnuity

Bhatgaon is a rural village of 571 Hindi-speakinq Fiji Indians

located on the northern side of Vanua I€\m, the second largest island
in the Dcrninion of Fiji. Ttre villagers are the descendents of north
Indians vrtro cane to Fiji betroeen 1879 and 1919 as identured plantation
rrorkers. Bbatgaon was established in the early 1900's and nor.r
includes 90 households. ltrere has been little migrration to or frcrn
 \q

tlre village for ttre past trrenty lears. ltlrst families lease rice land
frqn the Gorrrerrunent of Fiji, and, although ttey rnay ttork as seasonal
cane cutters or in other outside jobs, rncst nen consider thernselves
rice fanners. Rice and r,regetables are raised prirnarily for fanily
use, although surph:s prodr:ce may be sold to middlsren. Leaseholds
are generally sna1l, and rice farming does not afford Bhatgaon
villagers the sane op4nrtunities for rrealth available in sugar cane
raising areas.

the follcning account, *Ttre Cast of the Purported kofanities'"

both o<erplifies panca\at procedures and gives sqre of the flavor of
troubled social relations in Bhatgaon.

Ihe Case of Lhe Purported Profanities

ernka and his rnarried son Arun lease nine acras of land in a
relatively new subdivision. Anka had applied for t*o acres adjacent
to this fields and had begun to clear the area in March, L972, before
his lease las approved. In nid+larch the goverrrrent surrrelors cEUIE
and laid crut bor:ndaries for the new leases; the two acres Amka had
cleared lere to be rented to Satish and Jeshwan, tuo other farters.

orre day soon after the surveyors' visit Amka tas walking to his
nine-acre plot wtren he encountered the wives of Jestman and his
younger brother lorking in Jeshrwan's netv fieId. Ib told than to stop
rrorking there, as he had not yet aceepted ttre surveyorsr decision.
Jeshrnnrs wife subseqr:ently clained that he had *prn at them as rell;
she anil Amka had a longstanding dispute frcrn the days when they had
lived in adjacent households and had guarreled about Amkars @s,
wirich frequently entered her ocrqnund. A fert dale later Anka also
stopped the wife of Sr:rend, Satishrs son, frcrn rrorking in the nerr
field. fhe runcr that prnka had srorn at her as tell spread rapidly.

Allegations of Fmka's insults becarc widespread. Such charges

are taken seriously, as profanity to rtrcrtEn is vieryed as in Bbatgaon as
an adharmik offense, that is, one "against religion" (Brenneis 1980).
sr:cf,-668i[or also raises rlDre practical concernsi Fiji Indian
ornrnnities are village-e<oganous, dnd ferw trnrents rrould rvant their
tlaughters to narry into a crununity wtrere r.rcnEn were not safe frcrn
srch rrerbaL assaults. Altturgh the three rNEnEn vere the targets of
ln*a's alteged oaths, frcrn a local perspecLive the injured parties
rere ttreir rnaLe affines-husbands or fathers-in-Iar+-as llren are
consiilered responsible for protecting fsnale relatives frcn attack,
r}pt}rer phpical or rrerbal.
60

Satish, as the senior and npst widely respected nnle related to

any of the rqrcn and the one closest to Arnka in age, was seen as the
prJ:nary injured party. As Anka and Satish rlere both sanajis and
respected IIEn' several leaders of the reform Hindu association becane
concerned. After individual dissussions with Fmka, Satish and Surend,
they called a pancalat wtrich net several- days later on the edge of
Satish's nen field.

Satish, his son Surend and Birendra, a friend of Surend, rrere

waiting when Anka and seven other association rsnbers joined ttrsn.
Sr:rend and Birendra rNere both in their late thirties and shared a
reputation for hot-headedness; the pancarrat cqnnittee w;as particularly
concerned that r hey nc't be aroused. Everyone walked through the
disputed field and agreed that Anka had put considerable effort into
clearing the larrd. then they sat together on a hillside r.rverlooking
the land. Satish @an by speaking of his cr.m difficulties with the
goverrurent, wtrich had given him this acre but had given scnre of his
older fields to trtu other villagers. Ttren Satish said that the
pancavat had not been called to deal with the land issrre, as the
surveyors' decision was final.

Arnka then stood and agreed with Satish that, "ltre trnlitical rtork
is finished; religious rtork is renraining." the pancayat nsnbers then
began to dissuss the alleged profanities. They had arrarged that
Jestmanrs brotherrs wife, Rina Devi, rtould be r*aiting at Satish's
house to serve as a witness. Ttrey avoided notifying Jestnnn's wife as
all knerp of her antipathy tcx*ards Anka and doubted she nculd be
willing to alter her story. It nould have been inpossible to
construct a satisfactory account of the incident had she persisted;
the trnncalrat does not provide the opportunity to judge betrreen
ccnpeting accrounts. Rina Devi ryas called. She stood fifteen feet
away frcrn the ren with her young son as she *iore to tell the truth.
Wten Prakash, a [nncayat rrEmber, asked her about the incident, she
responded that. A'nka had said that it was not yet their land, hrt that
he had not insulted thern. Fmka agreed with her testinony wlren
questioned, a&nitting tlr,at he might have been scnewtrat short-terpered.
At this point Surendrs friend Birendra uno<pectedly entered the
diseussion by claiming that. three years earlier lrnka had srnDrn at hirn
for tying his br:llocks in Arnkars field, where they ate scne rice. The
other rren r^rere dunbfounded at this accusation, as they had treard
nothing about it in the Snst three years. Wkren no one responded to
his orrplaint, Birendra tlalked artray angrily. As Rina Devi had been
caLled as a test witness, everyone see$Ed satisfied that lmka had
probably not s'hrorn at Jeshrran's wife either. At this point Fnka's
son Arun jokingly ocmnented that when he had seen ttrc witness arrive
 6l

he had thought that the pancavat rrEnbers had intended to snbarrass his
father. Amka had lgrcn*n beforeband of thre witness and had agreed to
her testifying, as he knerr it would er<onerate him' but he had not told
Arun. Satish was angered by Arun's cqrnent and claimed to have knolrn
nothing of the witness. Sr:rend then spoke for tlre first ti-ue and tms
furious, displaying the tarper for rrrhich he was trell lsxcrn. He
shouted that there was no conspirary against Arnka, hlt that, Arun could
have it that nay if he so desired. Surend then ca]led his wife, Afikars
third alleged victim, frcm the house. She also testified on oath
that, although Anka had said that thre land was not theirs, he had not
srrprn at her. She returned to the house, and Surend sat dcr*n apart
frcm the others. His father, Satish, made a brief speech, quoting a
Fiji Indian political leader on tie virtues of reasoned discr:ssion of
disputes. Gre of the pancayat lrembers then assured Surend that Arun
had only been joking, and Arun apologized for his crrnrent. Surend and
An:n then shook hands, and the pancavat ended without further cqnrent.

3. the Politics of Equality in Bhatgaon

Arong Bhatgaon maLes an overt egalitarian ideology prevails.

Although ancestral caste appears to infh:ence narriage choice to scne
extent (Brenneis L9742 25)r it has fs daily conseguences. As dle
villager said, "gqgn rB sab barabba hei' rln the village all are
equal.'" Ihis pr:blic ideology is rnanifest in such practices as
sitting together on the flor dr:ring religious events and equal
opportunity to speak. ttre rots of this egalitarian outlook lie in
the mnditions of inmigration and indenture and are reinforced bV the
relative similarity in rpalth throughout Bhatgaon (for a detailed
cliscr:ssion of the develo5rnent of egalitarian ideologY in Fiji see
Brenneis 1979 ).

Srrch egalitarianisn, horever, is problenatic in several inportant

respects. First, not everlz villager is a lntential equal. Cender is
a crrrcial diminsion, for rnen do not consider !'Krren their equals. ltbn
ard vrnen are both politically active in Btatgaon, htt they take part
in verl' different wala and in different settings. rGn are the
perfonrers in such public political events as religious speectrnaking
and insult singing (Brenneis 1978; Brenneis and Padarath 1975). As
the case above denpnstrated, the conflicts engendering pancalat are
defined as being betvrcen nEn, even if rurcn are the innediately
affected parties. lbren nay speak in pancarzat as witnesses, txrt nen
organize and n:n the events. lEtenrs political participation
generally Gcurs in less grblic settings, as does much rnale
politicking through talanoa, rgossip.'

I
 Age also makes a difference. Molescenl boys are accorded less
resS:ect than o1der, rnarried nen. As there are no forrnal- sriteria or
cersncnies to mark the transition fron adolescenc-e to social-
adutthood, disagreenents about lrcnr one should be treated are @rrron
and often lead to serious conflicts betrcen rnales of different ages.
Even after adolescence, age rgnains an inqnrtant factor. ltrus, Anka
and Satish, noL Anka and Surend, rrere treated as the principal parties
in the case above.

A seccnd problernatic astEct of Bhatgaon egalitarianism is the

delicate h.'lance between people wtro should be equals. Ore of the
hallmarks of such an egalitarian crcnmunity is that individual
autoncmy is highly prized. Equals are those wtro mutr:ally respect
each otherrs freedcrn of action. Attenpting too overtly to infh:encre
Lhe opinions or action of another is a violation of this eguality.
F\:rther, individr:al reputation is central to oners actnal social
standing. A manrs rurm (rnarrp' or rreputationr) is subject to constant
renegotiation throulE-his crrn *ords ana Oeeas and through those of
others. Reputation rnarulgerrEnt is a constant concern in disputes, for
conflict often arises frcm aptrnrent insult, as that to Satish iJrplied
by Fmkars alleged profanities. ltre rarcdy lies in the public
reba'lancing of oners reputation with that of one's q>ponent.

A nunber of nen €rre recognized as bada a&ni, 'big ttenr' because

of their past participation in village affairs, religious leadership,
education, or other personal acccnplistrrent. Both Amka and Satish
were considered !a<la a&rd. Ttrey also gain respect through the
successful rnarngGt-6-f tfre di-putes of otnerl. this status is
always under stress, hcffever, as obtrrrsive attarpts to assert
authority or to intervene in others' problerns abuse the autoncmy of
other ren. $rccessful big ren do not q<ercise their inforrnal pq€r
ostentatiously. Oontinued effestiveness €rs a respected advisor
depends t4)on an otrert reluctance to asstrna leadership. EVen nrhen
requested to intervene in a dispute, big ten are often unwilling
because they fear both being identified with one Snrty's interests and
being considered too eager to display pcrrcr. Ttre willing e:rercise of
authority leads rapidly to its decline.

Ttrere is a polioe station three miles ahray, but Lhere are no

formal social control agencies within Bhatgaon itself. I?re village
has a representatirre on the district advisory council. He is not,
horever, erpcnered to regrulate affairs within Bhatgaon. With the
decline of caste as an organizational featr:re of Fiji Indian life,
such bodies as caste councils are not arrailable for qcnflict
managernent. Conflict in Btratgaon rernains largely dlnadic, the concern
 bJ

of the G)ntending parties alone, yet as long as the disputes are

d1'adic, the chances of a settlsrent are s1im. Ttrc face-to-face
negotiation of a serious dispute is r:.sr:ally fupossible, as ofEn
accusation or criticisnr of another is taken as a grrierzous insult. Ttre
offending party night rrell opress his displcosrlre ttrrough clandestine
mischief. While such vandalisn rculd not be praised, other villagers
'rcu1d interpret it as ttre natural result of direct onfrontation and
rrouLd not intervene. ftly a kara a&ni, a rhard t
manr rnuld risk such
revenge through direct discussion. lbst villagers resort to rore
indirect strateqies. It is difficult to enl-ist third parties in the
managernent of a conflict, hrt such triadic prticipation is crucial.
Itre recruitnent of others, not as partisans but as interrediaries and
nediators, is a qentral goal of disputants. Ccnpe[ing their interest
and involvqrent is therefore a rmjor end in dispute discourse. Not
surprisingly, avoidance rernains the rost cqnncn means of marnging
conflict.

Central to an r:nderstanding of conflict discsurse in Bhatgaon is

a consideration of the sociology of kncnledge in ttre cr:mrn:nity. As in
any society, both wtrat people talk about and how ttrey talk about it
are to scne o<tent infomed by wtrat they lonor, what they e:<pect. others
to kncrp and what they and others sho.rld l<rtcrr. lburever, ju,st as local
organization and social val:es r.rere transfoned during inmignation,
indenture, and post-plantation life, expectations oncerning the
social distribution of knonledge nere also draratically altered frcnr
those characteristic of north Indian villages.

the radical levelling of Indian inmigrant society in Fiji had

obvious inplications for the allocation of knodedge in Bhatgaon.
While in north India the differential distrihrtion of kno*ledge had
both reflected and sustained a systar of ranlced but interdependent
caste groq>s, in Fiji the grroqrs were at best ill-defined, and ttre
division of labor in part resSnnsible for the division of lcrcrrledge ro
Ionger e>cisted. Secular lmodedge becane, in effect, open to all.

In Btntgaon there was a orrespondingr derocratization of sacred

kncnledge as nell. The reformist qrlna sana'i sect has a central tenet
the notion of sikcs, 'instruction.r Usnbers are e><pected to educate
both thsrr.selvf6d others in religious practice and understanding.
Ihe stated purlDse of nost tlpe of public crcmnunication, frcm hlzrn
singing to the pancalat, is nental and spiritua'l inprovsrent.
Although reform Hindus €rre a ninority in Bhatgaon, their stress on
instruction has had a considerable effect on orthodor< Hindu villagers.
64

The generally egalitarian nature of social life in Btratgaon has a

c.ounterpa.rt in the relatively equal opportunity of all villagers to
pursue kncniledgte, both sacred and secular. Itre sacred has becure
shared knovdedge, in nrcst cases no longer the property of a trnrticular
group. It is irportant to note, hcnrrcver, that wtrere egalitarian
ideals are stressed, oontinuing slzmbols of one's membership in a
ccnmunity of peers are nec-essary. O:e nmst not only feel rernbership
but be able publicly to display it. Apparent. e><clusion frcm that
ccnmunity is taken very seriously, and knorledge crcntinues to define
one's social identity, atbeit in ways guite different frcrn those
characteristic of India.

A crucial way of dsncnstrating one's renbership is through

sharing in what is "ccnnDn kncndedge" in the oumunity-what
"everyone" kncx^rs. Although sacred and technical kno^tedge can be
included in this, they are relatively unchanging. ltre real action
lies in the dynamics of everyday life, for tr'trich familiarity with
1ocaI events and persornlities is necessary. lb one, hcnever, lorols
everything, and scnre villagers are ccnsiderably better infonred than
are others. Ttris differential participation in crcnrncn knorvledge lies
at the root of political talk in Bhatgaon.

4. Talk in Bhatgaon

A crcnsideration of the pancayat-or of any other particular tlpe

of verbal event-requires a bnief crcnsideration of the larger speech
econcmy of the village. Ttrc general features of nale speaking in
Bhatgaon derive in large part frcrn its character as an acephalous,
egalitarian ccnrm:nity in which individr:als are concerned both with
their orirn reputations and freedcm of action and with rnaintaining those
of others, particularly of ren with rtrtrcrnthey are on good terms.
One's enqnies present a rrDre oorple>< situation. T?reir reputations are
terpting targets, but too overt or successful an attack might lead to
irnediate revenge or preclude future reconciliation, as the insult
rryould be too grievous to renedy.

These broad features of life in Btratgaon r:nderlie a speech

ec'oncrny the salient feature of wtrich is indirection. Ore rarely says
o<actly wtrat one means. fnstead, in a rrariety of public and private
perforrnance gtenres, speakers must resort to netaphor, irony, double
entendre and other subtle devices to signal that they nean rrcre than
they have said. Such indirection is particularly rarked in situations
where overt criticism or ccmnent rrould be fuprovident or fuproper. In
Bhatgaon public occasions recurrently pose the sane dilemna: one m:st
both act and avoid the appearance of such action. Ttre perils of
 65

direct confrontation and of direct leadership in the village have

fostered oblique and highly allu,sive speech. Llnderstanding political
discourse in Bhatgaon therefore requires both the interpretation of
te)ts in thernselves and the unravelling of rrell-vreiled intentions. In
such genres as parbacan, 'religior:s speeches, I such oblique reference
is particularly narked. Parbacan are oratorical trnrforrnances with
ostensibly religious cont@i-ven at. rreekly services. Ttreir contents
are not ambiguous in thsnselves. Thus, it is easy for ttre
Hindi-speaking outsider familiar with Hinduism to follqr a discussion
of , for e>canple, the fidelity of Sita, the wife of the epic hero Ram.
the relationship between such a text and its intended function,
hcnrcver, rsnains guite opague. Ttre audience kncns ttrat scne speakers
have no hidden agenda wtrile others are r:sing parbacan for lnlitie'l
ends. Such indirection both prech.rdes revenge and pricks ttre
curiosity of others whro feel they should r:nderstand what is really
going on. A srrccessful Inrbacan ccnpels the interest and imrolrrsrent
of potential third parties.

A second fuportant feature of renrs talk in Bhatgaon is tlrat the

c'ulturally ascribed purpose of nost genres of pr:blic, generally
accessible perforrnance is sikca, rinstnrstion.' I{hatever intentions
individual- speakers night have, their torts rm:st focus on such topics
as npral and spiritual furprovenent and ttreir apparent rotives rmrst be
didactic. Sr:ch genres as parbacan lrork politically bV joining sacred
teaching with covert secular interests. the politicar inplications of
pancarrats are nrcst overt. They prorzide authoritative and licit p:blic
explanations-thorryh not evaluations-of particular incidents.
Villagers can refer to these autlpritative accounts in later
discrrssions without fear of revenge.

Private conversation, *'hether gossip or not, is not limited by

this croncnern for instruction. Tbpics of crcnversation may range frcnr
national politics to the rreather, the selecLion of topic depending
upon particitrnnts and their shared interests rather than on generic
requirenents. trbst conversation is neutrally errahnted and seen €rs
not offering ttre sarre scope for instruction as speechsrnking. Gossip,
hcnever, is negatively eval:ated as rrorthless. Itre activities
discussed in gossip are thqnselves mnsidered rrcrthless or rasteful.
lihat could one possibly learn frcrn such talk, especially given its
potential dangers? Despite these negative associations, gossip is a
popular activity frcrn wtrich villagers take considerable pleasure.

Iblk is erral:ated not solely in terns of topic, horever.

Artfulness, fluenry, and wit are highly praised along dinrensions
specific to each gerrre. qpeectmakers, for er<anple, strotrld display a
66

good knowleclge of standard Fiji Hindi, a large Sanskritic rrccabularlz,

and a knack for apposite trnrables. !{hile gossip is thought to be
rrprthless in itself , nen w?ro occel in it are mtrch appreciated.

Fina1ly, genres of verh.l activity in Bhatgaon are linked

together not only in terms of the e:<pressive repertoire of the village
but in an inferential reb as rrell. Given the indirect nature of mcst
public crcnmr:nication, a crucial question is trqr one learns the
background inforrnation in terms of wtrich these obligue references can
be interpreted. Ttre pancatat plays a critical role in village
background infonnation.

5. The - !.: Constructing Public lhcnrledge

A parrcajat is usually crnvened by the elected office:: of a

religious association after ccnsiderable, albeit indirect, prodding
frcm disputing nernbers of the group. Pancayats involve quite direct
talk about specific events and personalities. Allegations wtrich in
rnost conte>rts rtould lead to revenge are discussed at length and without
repercussions. Given the nature of political life in Bhatgaon, the
pancayat poses interesting guestions: lfhat nakes such direct
perforrnances Snssible? What are their irplications for the future
relationship of the crcntending parties? and wtry do participants
claim to find thsn satisfying orperiences? Ihese questions can
partially be ansrrcred by outlining the process by wtrich penie1zats are
arranged, their participants, the formal organization of the session
as a c{mnunicative event, the crcntents of testinnny, and the effecLs
of the sessions. The pancayat rm,:st then be located within :he broader
contort of local theories of "therapy."

Pancayat sessions are planned and convened btr elected officers

of the disputants' religious association. Ttrese officers neet as the
antarang samiti ('crcnfidential cqrmitteer ) and very deliberately
discuss the case, choose appropriate witnesses to stunncn and otherwise
prepare for the session. Often crmnittee rsnbers will interviertr
witnesses clandestinely before the session is held. Wtrile they are
concerned that factr:al evidence wiII be presented, they also want to
mnage the presentation of the evidence i;r such a rr,ay that neither
party will be crcnrpletely mnquished. Reinstating the good reputations
of both disputants is a central goal. In the above case, only
Jeshrrnnrs wife, the original accuser rr'ho was not called as a witness,
was not vindicated; fron the rnale point of vierr, \runenrs reputations
are rrore o<pendable. Ccrmittee rrembers are also concerned with the
public erral:ation of their cr*n behavior. Ttrey rust rtot appear to be
 o/

to eager or to dcrninate the proc-eedings. The suc.cessful rnanagerent

of others' conflicts requires at least ttre appearance of reluctance;
the ocmnittee rsnains as far backstage as 5:ossible.

the francayat itself is held on neutral ground. Both parties

attend along with their sr44nrters, the witnesses, and the ccrnnittee
rrembers. Itre session is often the first public occasion since the
@inning of the dispute to be attended by both disputants. Such
joint participation is inportant in itself.

the pancarrat audienc.e presents a ocnple>< picture. Discourse in

the Inncayat chiefly takes the form of testinrcny under oath, and
various deities ccnprise an inportant secondary audience insuring the
truthfulness of eyaritnessesr accounts. ltre crmrrittee nrenrbers also
play an irportant role in asking questions and rnaintaining fairly
close control over the issues wtrich witnesses can grrsue. Ttre prinary
audience for the event, trohever, is not present. Gris audience
includes ocreligionists and the village as a wtple, dnd it is frcm
this audience that the pancarrat derives a great deal of its
effectiveness. Before the session is held, an individual villager,s
kncrvledge of the case erres through private and freqr:ent1y factional
Iines. Such kncnrledge is r:nauthorized; it can be discussed with close
and trusted friends but cannot be drawn qnn in pr:blic talk. Ttrrough
pancayat testinony an official and &finitive account of events
crucial to the develogrnent of a dispute is publicly constructed. It
bectrres the basis for later discr:ssion and a new baseline against
which the subsegr:ent behavior of the disputants can be neasr:red. It
also lets e\teryone knql wtrat happened bebreen the parties and ansvrers
those critical questions raised obliquely in r:arbacan (religior:s
speeches ).

The interrogative form of pancayat proceedings is another factor

in their suoc-e-ss. !€nbers of the cemnittee interviertr a series of
witnesses, each of wtrcm has s\iorn to give trutlrful testinony. Such
oaths are taken guite seriously, although trnrsonal anfurosity can at
tfures interfere, as rrilas feared in ttre case d.iscussed above. In rnarked
contrast to Arerican cpurtrocms, there is no adrrersarial qrrestioning.
OnIy the cqnrdttee can ask questions, and they ask only those qr:estons
to rfiich they already kncnr the ansrders. lrknen, wtro rarely figrure in
other public events, are called as freqr:ently as nen, although the
disputes are construed as being betueen rEn, even if through their
fgnale kin.
6B

The question-ansr,uer fornat has t*o features of critical

inportanc-e for the sessionsr success. First, pancayat questions
ccnpel ansrrers (Cf . Goody 1978). An unansrrrered qr:estion is an
interactional vacuum, and, especially in these public eonte:<ts,
response is necessary. It is likely, furthenpre, that the style and
degree of directness of an ansr,'rer are Sntterned on the sare qualities
of the question (see Conley et al., L978 for scne suggestive findings
in this area). ltre direct questions put by ofirLittee nsnbers draw
forth terse but equally direct ansviers.

A second fuportant feature of the question-ansr.rer forrnat is

suggested by the rrcrk of Keenan, Schieffelin and Platt (1978). In
interpreting its e><tensive use by nrcthers in speaking with very young
children, they suggest that the question-anSW€r pair be crcnsidered a
single protrnsitional unit. By anwering the question-whether
verbally or nonverbally-the infant ccnpletes the idea begun by its
nxother. If this notion is applied to the pancayat, the cqrmittee
nernber|s question and the witness's answer ccnprise a single
proposition. Ttrus, no one is solely resSnnsible for any clafuns. Such
evasion of 6:ersonal accurntability and the crcncr:mitant shared
resolution of contention fit well in the acephalous and egalitarian
conLext of Bhatgaon. Ttre public rrarrative is constructed through the
propositions collaboratively stateri by guestioner and witness. Ttre
ccnmittee is not presenting an account of its osn but is contributing
to its curposition.

The orchestration of paneayats as events is a delicate job. Ttre

appropriate witnesses nn:st be located and their accounts cotpared and
checked. Ttre planning involved, hcwever, cannot be evident to the
disputants or the neutrality of the cqnrLittee might be challenged.
Witnesses and audience aLike nnrst be carefully controlled. ltre perils
posed by o<traneous issues are clear in the case above. In ccntrast
to the Itpelle noot, the pancayat by no rreans involves a full airing of
grievances, since potential hostile responses are not denied hrt
carefully avoided. Pancayat testinrcny is confined to a pa.rticular
incident frcnr nrhich the dispute is aonsidered to stern. Ttre cqrmittee
has a clear prospective interest in futr:re relationships betrreen the
disputanLs, but a oonstrained, aptrnrently ungnctional and retrospective
focus is the nost effective way of insuring a successful outccrne.

A final crucial feature of fnncayats is the manner in which they

end. Mter the last witness there is no sr:mning r4), no discussion,
and no decision by the csnnittee. The disputants are not emlrarrassed
by any directly suggested solution, and the ocmnittee rsnbers do not
overstep their roles. Ttestinony establishes a single and
 69

nonc€ntradictory ac-count of crucial events. Threse publicly

acccrnplished facts Erre seen to stand on their crvn. Ttre disputants
usually shake hands without much conversation, serving as both a
public staternent of the resurption of amicable relations between thern
and a signal that the session is over. The participants may linger,
but they talk about other subjects. ft is important to understand
that no @nsensus is reached or even atterpted, and no decision is
rnade. A crcoperative and binding account of a contested incident is
accrcnplished, and interested villagers are left to draw their orn
conclusions and interpretations. E\reryone's autoncrny is rnaintained.

6. Dranatic Gestures

In the preceding section I orplored the pancayat as a shared

social occasion, an event in wtrich ocnmunicative form, political
fleribility, and qcncern for the rra}.rcs of individr:al autoncmy and
reputation are closel-y intenroven. In this section my focus rernains
on the pancavat as ccmnr:nicative event, brt I arn rrDre concerned with
questions raised bV the striking crcntrasts betrrcen its features and
those suggested by Gibbs for therapeutic ta1k. Ttre pancayat is
clearly a supportive conto(t, one in wfrich the rermrd of respectful
treatnent as a rrcrthy social equal is critical. It is not, Lpwever,
an event in wtrich just any kind of talk is permitted, in terms of
either content or style. F\:rther, there is no denial of reciprocity
in that speakers are still acc-ountable for the oonduct of their talk
and not sheltered frcrn anger or revenge should they go beyond
acceptable limits. These tr*o elsnents are critical for the cathartic
quality of much therapeutic ta1k. In their absence, hc*,r does the
trnncayat lvork as a psychologically satisfying event for those
involved?

Any valid rreasure of "grsychological satisfaction" was beyond both

ry intent and my ability h'hen I rryent to the field. It was clear,
horaever, that rnany villagers valued the pancayat for reasons quite
apart frcrn its role in developing a public narrative. Ore reason was
clearly its association with archaic Hindu institutions, a very
irportant quality for arya sanajis in particular. F\:rther, the
pancayat rras often discussed in aesthetic terms: trow rrcIl staged was
a particular Krancalrat, trchr r+ell did it. hang together, brcr.rwell spoken
r*ere its participants? In short, the tnnca)at as a wtrole fits
Baumnrs definition of verbal perfonnance (L9772 11), "inrrclv(ing) on
the part of the perforner(s) an assr:rrption of responsibility to an
audience for the way in wtrich ccmnunication is carried out, above and
beyond its referential content." A pensslgg is nore than its topic,
for aesthetic pleasure, or pleasure o<pressed in aesthetic terms, is
70

central to it. In the preceding section I discussed in detail scrne of

the nonreferential features of the pancayat, especially the basic
organizational fact that it is crc-Srerforrnanc€, eul event relying upon
cooperation and the cpordination of nunerous people's efforts. In
this section I wiII concentrate on sorre aspects of local aesthetic
theory and its crcnfluence with notions of personal e:<perience and
ernction. !{hile these ideas are not elaborated or associated in very
systenatic ways with each other, tJ:ey provide a missing Iink between
social- action and individual satisfaction in the pancayat.

There are troo salient features in Bhatgaon villagers' discussion

of ernction and e>rpressiveness. First, the raprd in local Hindi for
erotion or feelings-Q4w-is the same as that for gesture or display.
Second, none of the feelings glossed by bhaw seern to be individually
o<perienced ones, at Ieast as people sSnke of thsn. Bhaw, 'feelingsr'
are not vievaed as internal states.

There is an odd juxtaposition of psychological and aesthetic

theory here. Whry should such aptrnrently dispa.rate ideas as gesture
and feeling be joined together in the sane rryord? I'lhile our tradition
reveals sanervhat analogous phencmena-for o<anple, the initially
netaphoric ortension of the dranaturgic notion of catharsis to
psychological theory--the Fiji Indian case is guite different. Ttre
Hindi word bhaw derives etlmrclogically frcrn the Sanskrit bhava. Bhava
is linked wlth-a seccnd Sanskrit term, rasa, in the central ".heoryE-
classical Hindu 5:oetics, usr:ally kno,rm as rasa-bhava theory. Rasa
refers to nnods, or, among rnore poetic translators, flavors,
inpersonal, universal sentinents. Bhava is r:sually translaLed as
feelings, individualized, experienced, situationally specific. Ttre
role of drarna, and of artistic endeavor rncre broad-Iy, is to provide
the opportr:nity for audiences to share in the experience of the
nonindividualized, universal rcods.

"In a play, what the actor acts is not the central npod of
Iove or grief. He acts out the conditions that e><cite that npod
and the responses that follou frcrn it...Ttre Indian theorists
spell this out in grreat detail, prescribing for each of the rasas
the correlative consequents, the kinds of dranatis [Ersonre, the
gestures and scenery and kinds of diction, thus analyzing crcntent
into forms. Ttre feelings of an individual are based on personal,
accidental , inc.cnmunicable e>rperience. ftIy when they are
ordered, depersonalized and rendered ccnmunicable by
prescriptions do they participate in rasa...Rasa is a
depersonalized qcndition of the self, an irnaginary system of
relations" (Ranranu'ian 1974: 128 ) .
 '7L

In cbntrast to r:sr:al !{estern notions of ttre locus of qnction

being in the individual and to those regionally Pacific ideas of
"snotion rtords...as statsrents about the relationship between a person
and an event" (Lutz 1982: ll3), _rasg-lbgy1 theory sesns to Iocate
nnod in events thernselves. The nonindividr:alized npod-rasa-is nore
highly valued than the personal and inocpressible feeting associated
with it. Perfonrers are not "exgrressing" Lhernselves in any way; they
are rather helping construct a shared gnctional o<perience for the
audience.

Specific rasas are integrally linked with specific kinds of

inter6:ersonal arrangeilEnts, often redundantly enc-oded through costtrne'
makeup, gesture, and setting as r.ell. Ttre exanple of llindi fiLrs
might be helpful here. They are full of lrrtrat rnrst hbsterners see as
stock characters and a predictable range of stek scenes, nrcre like a
series of tableaux then a drana in the Western sense. These elerents,
horever, are seen by Indian audiences as conventionally engendering
particular responses shared by the audience as a whole.

While the term rasa is not heard in Bhatgaon, it is clear that

bhaw is related in n6E-tnan etynrclogical ways to the drarnaturgic and
psycnofogicaf notion of bhava.5 Bhaw is used npst frequently in
-onrpound constructions iEEfigioGTiscourse, as in prenbhaw ('Iove' +
btnw), rrrhich carries the multidirrensional neaning of a situation of
interpersonal amity, the display of the nmtr:ally respectful and
arniable deneanor wtrich srbodies this amity, dnd the o<perienc-e of that
state. Prsnbhaw is definitively associated with the weekly neetings-
of religGEG-sociations and linked through that event with such
perfonnance genres as parbacan and hltmn singing. Ittoral
didacticisn--the willingrness to teach and be taught-is a critical
ccnqnnent of prernbhaw. Clearly defined turns, a focus on rrpral or
spiritual i.nproverent-on the "nessagen-and the willingness to attend
to what an individual is saying are arlong other features encoding
prsnbhaw and enabling its erperience.

The pancayat both instances and al-Icmn for the experience of

prenbhaw. Although organized differently frcrn the religious neeting,
the pancayat similarly dernands cnoperative co-perforrnanc.e. Strict
turn alternation, nutually respectful deteanor, and its clearly rnarked
status as an event are social and individual gestures of anity.
Strong qrption need rnt, indeed nn:st not, be e<pressed in such as
conterct. Central to its success is the participation of all present
in a depersonalized, and hence less dangerous en5:erience of shared
good wiU. Ttrerefore such eruptions as those of participants not
futly priled for their parts-as in Birendrars otrtburst over an alleged
oath three years earlier-can be especially threatening. ltre ac-counts
developed in the pancayat, and the rrEzrns by wtrich those narratives are
particitrnnts cooS:eratively constructed, allcnrs participants to join in
an "irnaginative systan of relations" (Rannanujan 1974: 128), one in
which a shared sense of social stability and crcnrnon purpose in a
frequently tr.unultuous social 'rcrld is possible.

My analysis here clearly relies on attention to very localized

and particularistic rnaterials. If Gibbs possibly erred in using
Western theories to orplicate the effectiveness of the Kpelle house
trnlaver, does this paper go too far in the other direction, eschaning
any cross-cu1tural applicability for the sake of providing a
culturally rooted account? I rrould suqgest that ethnographically
rmted analyses can indeed have broader heuristic and substantive
inplications.

First, studies rnake it increasingly clear that the "5nlitical"

and the "psychologic^] " do not curprise easily definable, let alone
clearly segnrate dcrnains. Rather, sociopolitical features of Iife in
particular crcmnr:nities interpenetrate cultural theories of personhood
and operience. The Fiji Indian sitr:ation is a striking o<arple of
hcnp closely entwined the tco strands can be and of how rapidly they
can change. Btratgaon villagers are engaged in an ongoing process of
interpreting and redefining cultural notions and applying them to nen
problans and sitr:ations. Ttreir theories are "grartial" because they
are emergent, resSnnding to a social rorld already dranatically
transfonred and still changing.

Second, Fiji Indian theories crcncerning crcnflict and its

resolution proceed frcrn scrnslhat different prenises than those shared
by nany l{estern analysts. Scholarly treatments often, in effect,
"psychologize" mnflict, making social process-at least in its rncre
disnptive aspects-scnetines seern to represent individual processes
writ large. In such treatments, frustrations unexpressed lead to
aggression, and individr:at aggressiveness leads to broader conflict.6
Gibbsr argnurents, and those of rmny other legal anthropologists as
well, faII firmly within this tradition of psychodynamic analysis.
Gibbs argues that the indiyfflrr:'l catharsis and release afforded by the
noot help reducre the likelihood of future conflict, and that personal
therapy serves social ends as rrell.

In Bhatgaon, on the other hand, what rte night oonsider

psychological is made social. The internal self so critical to Gibbsr
nndel is peripheral to the pancatat. Instead, "tr)ersons" are political
actors, ernbodied in large part in their reputations, what others think
 73

and say of thsn. A.s political solution the francayat allops the public
restoration of good narres. the possibilities of shared sentinent
critical to satisfaction with the event, h@ver, are socially based
and can only be socially e:<perienced.

In his recent theoretical outline of pragrnatics Verschueren

includes trro factors particularly relerrant to this study, the
"psychologies" of speaker and hearer (1987: 55, 68). Ttreir
individr:al intentions, predisSlositions, and idioslmcracies are often
assured to be critical deterrninants of lingruistic form. ltris paper
sr:ggests that "psychological" concerns are indeed furyortant. in
understanding the effectiveness of pancayat discpurse. Ilcnrcver, f was
not gtuided by the inputed gualities and nrctives of particular
individr:als; rather, local ethnopsychological theories - shared
notions of erption, o<Srressiveness and e>perienc€ - sha@ my
interpretations. It is in terms of such notions that audiences ratify
the nressage of the Inncayat and find it effective and satisfying.
IiICITES

Acknovyledqerents: Ram Padarath has been a tEtient friend and

inrrahnble colleagrue in rtorking through a nr-unber of the ethnographic
puzzles pursued in this paper. An earlier v'ersion rdas presented at
the Pitzer @Ilege Conference on talk and therapy in the Pacific. I
an indebted to fellcrvr participants for their a&rpnitions and
encouragerent. Geoff White and I€ren Watson-Gegeo rdere particularly
helpful in sustaining the general framerrcrk and goals wtrile gently
guiding our individual contributions. l[mne F\.lrth, Roger Abraharns and
Ronal-d Macaulay also provided rza}:able criticism.

I. D:ring my thirteen nrcnths of fieldrrork in L97L-72 I attended

three pancayat and heard of only four others taking place dwing
that tine. An e><haustive survey of pancalat was irpossible, br:t I am
certain that I learned about alrnost all the rrpre or less successful
ones after Lhey had taken pl-ace. Subsequent fieldrork in 1975, 1980
and 1984 indicates that pancayat have becqte even less ccrmpn events.
I was rrelc-crre at the three tnncalrat I attended but was asked not to
bring the tape recorder in case scmething rrent wrong; only successful
Inncarrat rrere to go on the record.

2. With Indian independence in 1947 village pancavat rrrere

reorganized or, in scnre cases, created frcrn scratch by the national
goverrurent for local-level develogtent or as alternatives to forrnal-
courts. Ttre npst thorough and revealing study of a contenporary
traditional pancavat in India has been Robert Hayden's rrork with the
l{andir*allas of Maharashtra (1981). In a recent orplicit ccnparison
with the Fiji Indian pancatrat, tiayden (1987) argnres that the Indian
pancavat is prfunarily concerned with questions of evah:ation and
response, in oontrast to the "fact finding" oentral to the Fiji Indian
event. Ttre style and organization of the trn kinds of pancayat as
cunmrnicative events are strikingly different, the llandiwalla version
being occeptionally raucous and fuII of conversational overlap. These
differences in part reflect the considerably nore authoritative
position of the Nandiwalla pancanat; its role is taken for granted,
while the occurrence, let al-one Lhe effectiveness of its fiji Indian
counterpart, relies on de'l icate negotiation.
 ta

3. Since Gibbs' article was pr:blished in 1953 a wide range of

therapies not prenised upon the idea of catharsis have beqcne
increasingly salient in the United States. This paper is concerned solely
with contrasts betueen Fiji Indian practice and that rrDdel of therapy Gibbs
presents.

4. The minfunal role of the "self" in fiji Indian ethnopsychology

has a c-ounterpart in the rrore general Hindu notion of "otr)e!:r"
personhood (llarriott n.d. ). Ttre highly "ooncrete-relationalr"
conto<tually specific [Erson descriptions found by Shreder and Bourne
(1984: 172) in Orissa contrast strongly with the nore abstracl
descriptions given by Arericans and illu^strates an apparent Oriya
reluctance to think of the 'self" as a consistent, rigid.Iy bounded
unit. See also Surya (1969) for a discussion of related difficulties
he had in applying Western notions of "ego" in psychotherapeutic rork
with north Indians.

5. there is a nrcre direct link behceen Indian n:ral culture in

Fiji and the literate Hindu great tradition than there might be for
mcst rminland Indian villages as Hindu missionaries, both orthodo>< and
reform, have been very active in Fiji, drawing r4nn and r:sing a wide
variety of textr:al rnaterials wtrich have subsequently been adopted by
villagers. tre reform (Anra Samaj) missionaries particularly took
classical Hindu notions such as bhava as rhetorical focuses for their
trPfk.

5. Orre of the clearest discr:ssions of the "Srsychologization" of

conflict in hlestern scholarship is in lbch's (1974: 5-7) concise
essay on anthropological theories of r,arfare.
/o

REFREI{CES

Bannan, Richard (L977 ) Verbal- art as perfonmnce. In R. Baunan (ed.),

Verbal art as perfonqncg. Rcriley: lb,/cury l{ouse.

Brenneis, Donald (L974) Conflict and qrnrn:nication g_g_Efji_Eq&l

ccnmunitv. Ph.D. O ,
Harvard University.

Brenneis, Donald (1978) Ttre rnatter of talk: political perfonnances in

Bhatgaon. Ianquaqe in Societv 7: 159-170.

Brenneis, Donald (1979) Oonflict in Btratgaon: the search for a third

party. In Subrarnani (ed. ), Ttre Indo-Fiiian e>perience. St.
Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Brenneis, Donald (1980) Strategies of offense choice: nalice and

rnischief in Btratgaon. Canberra Anthropoloqist 3: 28-42.

Brenneis, Donal-d (1983) the energing soloist: karruali in Btratgaon.

Asian Folklore Studies 422 67-80.

Brenneis, Donald (1984) C,rog and gossip in Bhatgaon: style and

substance in Fiji Indian conversation. lsrerice!_EgrlclegS! 11:
487-506 "

Brenneis, Donald, hdarath, Ram (1975) About those scoundrels frll let
everyone kncpv: challenge singing in a Fiji Indian ocmrunity.
Journal of Alrerican Folklore 88: 283-291.

Conley, J., O'Barr, W., Lind, E. (1978) The poA'er of langruage:

presentational style in the crcurtrocrn. Drke Iaw Journal:
l37s-I399.

Duranti, Alessandro (1986 ) I?re audienee as co-author: an introduction.

In A. D-rranti and D. Elrenneis (eds.), Ihe audience as co-author.
Special issue of Te:<t 6 (3)z 239-248.

D:ranti, Alessandro, Brenneis, Donald (eds.) (1986) Ttre audience as

ceauthor. Special issue of Tbxt 6 (3).

Geror, Edr*in (L974) Drernatic criticign. In E. Dinnck, Jr., et. af .,

(eds.), Ttre literatures of India: an introduction. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gibbs, Janes (1953) The l{pelle noot: a therapeutic npdel for the
inforrnal settlenent of disputes. Africa 33: 1-[.

Goody, Esther (1978) Trcrdards a theory of questions. In E. Goody,

(ed. ), Questions and politeness: strateoies in social
interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hayden, Robert M. (f98f) "lilc one is stronqer than the caste": arguing
dispute cases in an Indian caste pancayat. Ph.D. d.issertation.
Departnent of Anthropology, State university of llerw York at
Buffalo.

Hayden, Robert M. (1987) 1\rrn-taking, overlap and the task at hand:

ordering speaking turns in legal settings. Arerican Ethnoloqist
I4(2);25I-270.

Ito, Karen (1985) Ho'oponopono, 'To make right': Ilawaiian conflict

resolution and netaphor in the cronstruction of fanily therapy.
Culture, l,tedicine and Psvchiatrv 9z 20L-2L7.

Keenan, E., Schieffelin, 8., Platt, t'1. (1978) Questions of innediate

concern. In E. Goody, (ed.), Questions and politeness:
stratesies in social- interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Koch, Klaus-Ftiedrich (1974) Ttre @. Reading:

Addison-htresley.

Iabov, William, Fbnshel, David (L977 ) ttrerapeutic discourse:

psvchotherapv as conversation. Nsr York: Acadsnic Press.

Lutz, Catherine (1982) the dcrnain of qrction r,'ords of Ifaluk.

Arerican Ethnoloqist 9: 113-128.

Marriott, McKim (n.d. ) Ttre open Hindu person and the hunane sciences.
Unpublished rns.

Ivgers, Ered, Brenneis, bnald (1984) Introduction: Iangrr:age and

politics in the pacific. In D. Brenneis and F. l{yers (eds.),
hnqerous rrords: lanquaqe and politics in the Pacifis. t!e$r York:
l{srs York tlniversity Press

Parsons, Talcptt (1951) the qeqiAl syslqn. Glenc.oe: The FYee Press.
'/B

Rananujan, A. K. (L974) Drarnatic criticisrn. In E. Dinnck, Jr., et,

al. (eds.), The literatures of India: an introduction. Ctricago:
University of Chicago Press.

Slnrcder, Richard A., Elr:rne, E&mrnd J. (1984) Does the ocncept of the
person vErry cross-culturally? In Richard A. Shweder and Robert a.
LeVine (e.ls. ), Culture theory: essavs on mind, self and snotion.
Carnbridge: Cambridge University Press.

Surya, N.C. (1969) Eqo structure in the Hindu joint family: scne
considerations. In W. Caudill and T.-Y. tin (eds. ) tlental health
research in Asia and the Pacific. Iionolulu: east-weEE-cenE& press.

Versctrueren, Jef (1987) Pracrnatics as a theory of linquistic

adaptation. I.P.R.A. Working Docurent I.

Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann, Wtrite, Geoffrey I"1. (eds. ) (n.d. )

Disentanqlinq: the discourse of conflict and Lherapv in the
Pacific. Unpublished lt{s.

White, Coffrey (1979) Scne social u"ses of snction langn:age: a

rnelanesian o<anple. Paper read at t'fis s1y1rr:l neeting of the
Arerican anthropological association. Cincinrrati, Ctrio.

White, Coffrey (n.d. ) Enction talk and social inference in A'ara

"disentangling. In I€ren Ann Watson{egeo and Geoffrey M. White
(eds. ), Disentanqling: the discourse of conflict and therapy in
ttre Pacific. Unpublished rns.