How is indigenous knowledge maintained and reproduced in the diaspora? If metaphors and metonyms define Salelologa movements and ongoing interactions in new contexts, what are the implications for matai (chiefly system) and tautua (service)? The discussion below is based on data collected in the field from 1999 to 2002.^[1]

The matai system has been described in detail by many authors (Franco 1985; Freeman 1984; Holmes 1957; Liu 1991; Va`a 2001) but in recent decades, it has undergone many changes including a decline in authority over production by the extended family. As matai titles have proliferated and matai have lost their authority and former economic role, families have become smaller and the pool of potential servers limited. Young men can no longer be sure they will be able to command the service of the next generation in their old age (Maiava 2001; O’Meara 1990). Overseas movement and investment in formal education are some of the important ways in which `aiga have dealt with these changes. In turn, parents rely more on their own children and the parent-child relationship has become increasingly emphasised. Similar conclusions have been reached about Fijian population movements, where nuclear family relationships are becoming more central (Young 1998).

Interviews and discussions carried out in Salelologa, Auckland and Santa Ana between 1999 and 2002 also indicate that sibling relationships are becoming more relevant to the orchestration of movement and remittances, although this shift is gradual and subtle, not abrupt. This is because the actual composition of individual households is but a superficial indicator of reciprocities that exist or may be potentially reactivated at some future time. Some families in Auckland have no surviving parents but an eldest cousin has become their matai. For example, despite living in Sydney, one matai, Mulitalo Sefo, has taken on the leadership role for all his cousins and siblings in times of crisis, and mobilises this extended family to collect resources for fa`alavelave (life-cycle events including weddings, births, funerals, graduations) whether they are held in Samoa or overseas.

One of the basic criteria for receiving a title is the imperative to provide tautua (service) as expressed in the proverb, `O le ala `i le pule `o le tautua (the way to authority is through service). Formerly, untitled men lived in the community and served their matai and village fono (council) until it was their turn to be matai, often upon the death of a senior titleholder. But with mobility, the bestowing of titles based on tautua has changed and matai conferment happens more often overseas. As already discussed, ‘place’ is an important factor in retaining Samoan values but change is also negotiated and contested in different places. It is possible to invest in the `aiga not only through movement abroad and educational achievements but also by conferring matai titles overseas. Despite the decline in the traditional economic role of matai, their social and political roles remain intact. The village fono retain the political power to sanction unacceptable behaviour. It is the matai who organises the pooling of resources from immediate and extended family members, combining their contributions to hold fa`alavelave and then redistributing the gifts. Skilful organisation of these institutionalised rituals enables matai to reposition their power base in society.

Traditionally, certain matai titles (chief or orator) came with the right to confer other titles (Meleisea 1987; Va`ai 1998). These can be conferred based on service to the matai and `aiga by those related by toto (blood), tino (by adoption) or service connections and usually assumes that the conferment is done in Samoa on the malae where maota (chiefly house site) and laoa (orator house site) are located, for this adds legitimacy and authenticity to titles. During investiture, the matai receives recognition through the presence/attendance of the village fono. Recently, however, matai titles have been conferred overseas, not only by the matai of Salelologa to other village members, but, sometimes by matai from other villages. Samoans express concern that this is making a ‘chop suey’ of fa`a-Samoa and some question the legitimacy of these new matai holders. Most, however, say legitimacy depends on context and describe the creation of new matai as pragmatic and sensible.

Samoans draw upon traditional cultural principles to justify the changes they are making to their own practices. On many occasions, matai titles conferred overseas are given as reward for family generosity to the resident matai. Conferring titles expands the circle of economic and political obligations of support. These are not limited to the untitled and those in Samoa, but also to matai living fafo. The power of i`inei (matai resident in Samoa) to bestow titles provides another avenue for receiving tautua. The size of Samoan communities and growing number of Samoan churches fafo have combined to push matai investiture overseas. Some people argue that a matai title adds depth, history and status to an individual’s educational achievements or his or her economic wealth. Insofar as this conservative sentiment is shared by everyone in Salelologa, it works to bond the community, for matai titles are intangible links which hold together the members of the group.

One of the most obvious forms of symbolic capital, a key sign of prestige and household advancement in Salelologa is modern education. Tutai, a woman in her mid-50s, has six children and with her husband, Luamanuvae Taylor, an entrepreneurial chief, owns a store at the wharf. When interviewed in September 2000, four of their children had obtained government scholarships, graduated from overseas universities and today work for the government in Apia. Tutai argues:

The same argument is made by those overseas who have a role in the church. They say it is necessary to have a matai title because they need the recognition and respect that comes with it, in the process acknowledging that traditional status thus complements modern achievements. However, it also is a way for matai to reassert their authority in overseas contexts where the church minister’s authority is becoming quite hegemonic. This illustrates how local idioms and international processes interrelate to shape the dynamics of modern Samoan chieftainship. Indigenous institutions have been assumed in development theory as barriers to modernisation, yet we see here that they have been adapted by Samoans to suit their needs.

Although Samoans think of Samoan chieftainship as timeless, it has changed to suit modern socioeconomic conditions. Since Samoa’s independence in 1962, only matai could vote and campaign for a seat in the parliament. This means only a small fraction of the population could vote through matai suffrage. In the 1970s–80s, new titles that had been created for election purposes not only saw an increase in titles, but just about anybody was given a title, which resulted in what is known as matai palota (ballot matai). People saw the matai palota as rapidly eroding the integrity of chieftainship, which had been based upon tautua (service) and the selection of titleholders through consensus. The concern to preserve the integrity of fa`a-Samoa prompted universal adult suffrage in 1990, allowing all men and women over 21 years of age to vote but have to be matai to run as candidates in the country’s general elections.

Among overseas Samoans, family and community provide the social basis for the occupation of urban space and symbolic resources for cultural regeneration. This is not to deny that neither the material nor symbolic conditions for the regeneration of cultural practices are stable. The explanation for the renewed interest in matai and the conferment of matai on members fafo, I suggest is twofold. First, many overseas Samoans have accumulated ‘real’ power by virtue of their economic positions relative to those in Salelologa, therefore their desirability as potential matai has been enhanced. It is also a sign that indigenous Samoan institutions remain paramount, as Tutai said in her interview. The prestige that a matai title can bring constitutes, in Bourdieu’s terms, ‘symbolic capital’. It adds weight to status.

The reassertion of indigenous institutions also counters the secular power of fafo society. Senior matai conferring titles make some money while at the same time promote redemptive, emotional, perhaps nostalgic, ties with Samoans fafo. The institution of matai is being used by Samoans to maximise their accumulation of wealth and enhance personal and `aiga status. In so doing, they are redefining yet again the concept of tautua. Thus, the politics of the matai is inextricably linked to economic and social power. The ability to influence matai and events is often couched in terms of tradition and seniority, while cultural meanings are often renegotiated, and none too politely.

The process of conferring matai titles in Samoa has also changed. In the not so distant past, gifts given during matai ceremonies reflected the productive capacity of a family–in the form of pigs, taro, breadfruit, yams and fine mats. Most of the gifts during matai ceremonial events are now given as cash. While it appears that modernity is eclipsing tradition, this issue is not so simple. When I asked some matai the reason for this change, they responded that it was to lighten the burden of the provision of gifts by the hosts of saofa`i (investiture ceremonies), this way, family members are not burdened with the task of providing all the food and doing all the cooking for these events; it is a more efficient use of time.

Others question the integrity of the matai system when investitures are conducted through the medium of cash gifts. While village council members can benefit, certain individuals may take advantage of the Samoan propensity for conspicuous distribution. The traditional role of the tulafale (orator) prescribes that they act as negotiators speaking on behalf of the ali`i (chief). This usually justifies their share of food or money in the redistribution process, but discretion is advisable—the va fealoa`i (social space) of both the host and guest, tulafale and ali`i, must be considered. Excessive demands at a saofa`i by some tulafale during a matai investiture at the village council is a clear breach of tradition (Tuimaleali`ifano 2002). Certain individuals have overstepped the mark by demanding more money for their lafo (gift from the host), which some call an abuse of the system. The ‘commodification’ of the matai system can be seen in a saofa`i which took place in early December 2002. While I was in Samoa, an older sister of a relative of mine had received a matai title in Salelavalu, a village near Salelologa. A few weeks later, the relative wrote in an email (8 January 2003):

This example gives a sense of the historical and sociopolitical transformations the matai system or chieftainship has been through in everyday life in Samoa. People are negotiating tradition and the modernising effects of a globalising politico-cultural economy. Tradition and modernity are not simple binary opposites, however. Resourceful individuals and collective opportunism interact, producing in some ways radically changing fa`a-Samoa.

For Samoans fafo, traditional ceremonies remain important and participating in them establishes their status within the `aiga. Returning home with gifts and attending ceremonies important to Samoan culture not only enhances personal status but also achieves a certain prestige for the `aiga. Those who travel to Samoa and back to their fafo communities return with their cultural values reaffirmed. Extensive circulation reinvigorates ethnic Samoan identity and its presence everywhere manifests a transnational Samoan social structure.

Increased mobility in the past 20 years between `aiga in Samoa, New Zealand and America has educated families about how to travel less expensively. Life cycle and cultural events sometimes shift overseas when that provides a common ground for dispersed members to meet more quickly, easily and at less cost. These kinds of decisions emphasise the embeddedness of family and `aiga relationships and indicate a strong sense of connectivity and shared goals, irrespective of location. The transnationality of kinship structures, activities, identities and subjectivities are clearly apparent. In short, social position and identity are constructed simultaneously within local and global contexts.^[2]

As Koletty (2002, 146) reports in his study of Samoan movement in Southern California, ‘For Samoans, migration and circulation are not the disparate processes that such categorisation implies. They are part of the dialectic and a different conception of place.’ In short, a recognition of ‘all reciprocal flows irrespective of purpose or duration while still emphasizing the dialectic between the centrifugal attractions of wage employment, commercial and administrative forces and the centripetal power of village obligations, social relations and kin ties’ (Chapman and Prothero 1985, 4). Today, with nearly half the population of Samoa living overseas, mobility continues to be necessary to fulfil social and economic functions that maintain status within the `aiga and affirm Samoan culture. Chapman and Prothero (1985) point out that modernisation in developing countries has reinforced these customary circuits of mobility and added new ones. Circulation has taken on greater significance because despite the distances involved, it invigorates fa`a-Samoa by linking overseas Samoan communities with each other and the homeland. Although population mobility and remittances have caused fundamental social changes in Samoa, the direction, character and nuances of those changes have been culturally determined through family connections and the relationships among `aiga.