Bati as Bodily Labour: Rethinking Masculinity and Violence in Fiji

Abstract

Violence has been considered a decisive factor throughout much of Fijian history, from pre-modern inter-tribal warfare via participation in the British Military in both world wars to the more recent events of active military intervention in civil matters. Underpinning this history is a more fundamental notion of the Fijian male warriors (bati) as the protectors of everything Fijian. This is epitomised through bati ideology, which continues to hold purchase in discourses about Fijian identity and social organisation. Although the nature of violent practices has changed considerably throughout modern history, notions of martial strength, power and manhood remain closely linked in Fijian social ideologies. Embedded in this social context, contemporary constructions of masculinity are often centred on stylised performances of physical strength. Equating these dynamics with a claim that Fijian masculinities are intrinsically violent is, however, problematic. By looking at boxing and rugby union as constitutive social practices in the constructions of contemporary Fijian masculinities, we draw upon the concept of bodily labour to discuss how Fijian men negotiate bati ideology in a modern context. Our key argument is that while bati ideology remains pervasive as a part of the hegemonic notion of masculinity in Fiji, it is not used to valorise or glorify uncontrolled violence.

Keywords:

• Bati
• Bodily Labour
• Fiji
• Masculinity
• Anthropology of Sport

Notes

[1] The Fiji Islands have witnessed three military coups d’état, a civilian coup and several constitutional crises since 1987 (cf. Halapua 2003; Ratuva 2006).

[2] Here, and in the remainder of the article, the descriptive ethnic marker ‘Fijian’ is used to distinguish indigenous Fijians (for which the official term i taukei was recently established) from other ethnic groups in Fiji.

[3] See Teaiwa (2005). The word bati literally refers to teeth or sharp edge (Capell [1941] 1991, 5). The notion emphasises the pre-colonial role of warriors as defenders of the vanua and its chiefs. There is also a second meaning of bati. Within a yavusa (commonly translated as clan or tribe), bati are a group of people who pledge their allegiance to a particular chief and trace their ancestry to a particular kin group (mataqali bati). Additionally, the term bati is used for Fijians from other yavusa, which forged alliances with the respective group predominantly through marriage exchange systems, as opposed to qali groups which had been defeated on previous occasions and were bound to a tributary system and forced to offer military alliance. The bati consequently had a leading position in pre-colonial Fiji, which appeared to be reliant upon social structures in which certain types of physical power, aggression and gender performances were embedded and celebrated.

[4] Vanua literally means ‘land’ but this notion is central in Fijian culture and is best understood as an all-encompassing concept that refers to the Fijian population in relation to the land as it ‘embodies the values and beliefs which people of a particular locality have in common’ (Ravuvu 1987, 14–15).

[5] See also Marcel Mauss’s (1973) famous discussion on ‘techniques of the body’ for a further elaboration of these dynamics.

[6] On the other hand, Kanemasu and Molnar (2013) have recently discussed alternative narratives and cultural functions of rugby in Fiji, by focusing on Indo-Fijian and women’s rugby; Schieder and Presterudstuen (2014) have engaged with aspects of socio-cultural transformation with regard to transnational Fijian rugby migration.

[7] This is a pseudonym, as are all references to our field interlocutors.

[8] Mana has a variety of meanings which appear to vary considerably according to context, often referring to mystical or supernatural power or spiritual phenomena. The usage applied here is common in anthropological literature (Ravuvu 1988), and finds support in the fact that the opposite of mana is drevi, meaning ‘useless, inefficacious’ (Capell [1941] 1991, 135).