Agency, personhood and the 'I' of discourse in the pacific and beyond

Alan Rumsey*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    58 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Sahlins bases his account of Polynesian 'heroic history' partly on the fact that chiefs used the pronoun 'I' in reference to their whole group. Mosko (1992) argues that Sahlins's consequent emphasis on 'encompassment' as the modality of chiefly action is diametrically opposed to Strathern's on 'partibility', the effacement of parts of the person as a condition of action. Drawing on comparative material from the New Guinea Highlands, where big men also use 'I' for their whole group, and on Benveniste's and Urban's accounts of the meaning and use of personal pronouns, I argue instead that moments of both encompassment and partibility are inherent in language, corresponding to two distinct dimensions in which the pronouns are meaningful (the 'direct indexical' and the 'anaphoric'), and that close attention to the interaction between the two can yield new insights into the nature of personhood and social agency.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)101-115
    Number of pages15
    JournalJournal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
    Volume6
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2000

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Agency, personhood and the 'I' of discourse in the pacific and beyond'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this