Table of Contents
In this paper, my goal is to explore the dichotomy of ‘home’ and ‘host’ posited in studies of transnationalism. I intend to do this by examining the very different forms of migration I found in conducting fieldwork in three Tongan villages. I argue that the view from ‘home’ is often a missing aspect in explorations of transnationalism. This is not particularly surprising given the focus in these studies on the networked connections of diasporic peoples and communities. As is documented in this collection, Pacific Islanders have travelled far from Oceania to reside in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and other countries; they strongly identify themselves with their ‘home’ places; and they continue to interact socially, culturally, financially and politically with these places of origin.
There are two elements of transnationalism that are pertinent in the context of this discussion: the processes (cultural, social, economic, political) of exchange that occur between those living in the homeland and those in the place of migration; and the new forms of cultural, social and economic interaction that are created as a result of the interplay of these exchanges (Hannerz 1992).
The strength of these connections is such that migrants living in diasporic communities need never return to their homeland in order to legitimately participate in these cross-border exchanges. In fact, transnational actors do not need to have been born in the ‘homeland’ to identify strongly with the country of origin of their parents or grandparents, and to participate in diasporic transactions. Similarly many of those who remain at ‘home’ and who participate in these transnational processes, may never have travelled overseas themselves. This is the true power and agency of the transnational connections represented by family networks (Basch et al. 1994; Ong 1999).
While much work has focused on the lives of migrants and the impact of their diasporic movements and the nature of their connections to homeland, little research has focused on the transnational behaviours, movements, actions and perspectives of those remaining at ‘home’.
Additionally, although transnationalism and the examination of the connections between ‘home’ and the places to which people move is purely the study of movement itself, theorists can be guilty of fixing people and place in time and space. For example, the focus on Tongan migration or Samoan transnational practices, in a way, does not allow for difference within and between island cultures, or between islands and villages for that matter. The reality, as always, is more interesting and complex. The ways, means and reasons for movement are not so easily fixed.
As pointed out by Nakhid (this volume), reciprocity is central to transnationalism. My concern in this paper is therefore to analyse and explain the factors that enable people to become transnational in the first place. Factors such as opportunity and quality of connections to other places are core elements in this discussion.
My research in Tonga demonstrated that transnational practices can differ markedly among island nations and that patterns of movement into and out of villages can be identified. Variables such as history, origin and socio-economic context greatly affect how transnational movements are enacted and transacted. In researching transnational practices in the Pacific islands, fieldwork was undertaken in three Tongan villages: Lotofoa in the outer islands; Hofoa, which is close to the capital city of Nuku’alofa and ’Isileli, a newly created village of outer island migrants close to Nuku’alofa. A brief description of each village follows.
Located on the island of Foa in the outer Ha’apai island group, Lotofoa is characterised by other Tongans as ‘traditional’, a nomenclature often bestowed on all the peoples of Ha’apai. This distinction is both respectful, with an implication that the people of Ha’apai remember the old ways and keep to the old traditions unlike those who grew up on Tongatapu, and derogatory, with an implication of backwardness. According to one villager, Lotofoa was once the capital of Ha’apai and its wharf was the centre of trade and commerce in the cluster. Sailing boats called vakalā were used to ply the waters between Ha’apai and Tongatapu, taking produce and livestock to Tongatapu for sale. Another local indicated that trips to New Zealand were also undertaken.
The population relies primarily on subsistence cropping and harvesting of sea resources for their daily needs. Most families are able to use plantation land for subsistence purposes while a small number of farmers generate larger incomes through cash-cropping. Wage employment is a viable option for very few residents of the village due to the small-scale infrastructure of the Ha’apai cluster. While there are a number of government departments, some retail and tourism businesses, and a hospital all located in the capital Pangai, competition for the limited jobs available is intense.
Cash in the village is acquired primarily through the remittances of family living in other parts of Tonga or overseas, the sale of produce or sea harvest in Pangai or in the capital Nuku’alofa, or through profits made by small businesses such as the falekoloa (food/goods stores) that line the main roads of all Tongan villages. The relatively lower per capita income generated in Lotofoa is reflected in the higher proportion of traditional dwellings such as the faleTonga (thatched hut) in comparison to European-style housing. There is a group of entrepreneurs in the village however, who are able to generate cash surpluses through cropping and other business interests. Their success derives primarily from the ability to combine an understanding of basic business principles and cash generation with access to farming equipment such as tractors and ploughs.[1] Much of this equipment was purchased through savings acquired during work in overseas factories or through remittances from Tongan relatives living in Pacific Rim countries. These capital purchases have enabled these farmers to cultivate larger tracts of agricultural land and sell the resulting agricultural produce in the markets of Nuku’alofa (as distinct from the local markets of Ha’apai) where higher returns may be obtained. Finally, the population of Lotofoa has been decreasing for the past 100 years. This general observation masks the more complex movement flows that are taking place in the village.
Situated on the central northern coast of the main island of Tonga, Tongatapu, Hofoa is a medium-sized long-established Tongan village. Encompassing an area of approximately one square kilometre, the population live on ’api kolo ‘town allotments’ clustered along the central road leading through the village. From informant accounts, it appears that Hofoa was not originally established as a fort in the manner of other villages; rather, the area was plantation land later claimed by the royal family and transferred to the government.
The proximity of Hofoa to the capital allows young people of the village easy access to the superior secondary school system of Tongatapu.[2] As a result, Hofoa has a relatively highly educated population and consequently, many are employed in the government bureaucracy and the service sector, as well as operating small businesses or participating in the trades. Located in an arc surrounding the village, most families in Hofoa have access to or own an ’api uta/tukuhau (bush/plantation allotment). Cash-cropping is relatively rare, with most households growing small amounts of subsistence and ceremonial foods to supplement other subsistence and income-earning activities. There are some small-scale practices that earn cash to supplement wages, including the selling of surplus produce from gardens or fish caught on the nearby reef locally, through word of mouth or in a roadside falekoloa or in the markets of Nuku’alofa.
The people of Hofoa could be characterised as prosperous in comparison with other villagers of Tongatapu and certainly when compared to those in the outer islands. There are many indicators of this status in the village, including the high proportion of per capita car, truck and boat ownership as well as a predominance of well maintained, European-style housing. Five village churches (of various Christian denominations), four fale koloa and four church halls, which also become kava clubs several nights a week, serve as the primary sites of village social interaction and activity. The fono (village meetings) and social/life-stage events that take place at these venues continue to be announced to the community in the traditional way as the ’ofisi kolo (town officer) strides up and down the main street heralding the events in a loud voice.
Many villagers have travelled and lived in Pacific Rim countries and many households receive remittances from kin living overseas. Hofoa is also subject to a constant flow of population into and out of the village, as kin living in other parts of Tonga and overseas visit their relatives and friends in the village.
The densely populated, recently established community of ’Isileli on Tongatapu is situated on land reclaimed from the swamp to the north-east of Hofoa, approximately 2.5 kilometres from Nuku’alofa. The area was designated as a resettlement zone by the Tongan government in 1983 for people whose houses and villages were destroyed by Hurricane Isaac. Bounded in the west by the road leading to Hofoa from the ocean and southern fringe of ’api uta owned by the people of Kolomotu’a, the area in which ’Isileli is situated has never previously been used for human habitation.[3] Constantly flooded after heavy rain and suffering poor drainage, the village population has steadily increased following the original emergency settlement. Subsequently, migrants from all island clusters of Tonga targeted ’Isileli and the nearby village of Sopu as a point of settlement. The proximity of these villages to Nuku’alofa offers residents easy access to the education, employment, family and lifestyle opportunities offered by the capital.
The area is designated as tofi’a puleanga (government estate). As a result, ’api kolo (town allotments) are allocated and distributed by the Department of Lands. The land on which ’Isileli is situated was stabilised by rock quarried from coral deposits in the south of Tongatapu and transferred to the land allotments purchased from the government. These blocks tend to be much smaller than the average ’api kolo found in older Tongan villages. Large, empty sections of low-lying land on the outskirts of the village await the arrival of new settlers. This leads to the somewhat incongruous sight of small houses rising out of the swamp like islands surrounded by as yet unclaimed ’api kolo.
The government considers neither Sopu nor ’Isileli as a village in its own right. Incorporated within the larger and older district of Kolomotu’a, is home to most of the Kingdom’s nobles, these communities do not have their own town officer. Despite the fact that both villages have developed identities separate from Kolomotu’a, administrative and governmental structures have not kept pace with these developments.
Unlike Hofoa however, there are no plantation lands accessible to the population as all available arable land has been under cultivation by the people of Hofoa and Kolomotu’a for a number of generations. This has limited the ability of ’Isileli residents to grow subsistence crops. Some householders in ’Isileli from other parts of Tongatapu are able to use the land of friends or family in the area. There are also some toutu’u (collective garden) groups in the village, although that land is situated in another area of the island. For most people however, food is purchased from the market in Nuku'alofa.
As a village of migrants, there are few kinship connections between the residents of ’Isileli. Intravillage ties tend to be established through religious affiliation or via village or island-of-origin links rather than through kinship or marriage. As a result, the village has a very different ‘feel’ from others in Tonga. Important factors contributing to this difference include the combination of tenuous cross-cutting kinship ties and the constant arrival of new residents.
The people of ’Isileli are also more reliant on the modern monetary economy of Tonga than the populations of other Tongan villages. Lacking plantation land for the production of subsistence or cash crops, families must rely on the accumulation of capital through unskilled wage labour, small business, the bureaucracy, trades or professions. As a result, there is an uneven distribution of wealth within the village, with some very poor families (often with low levels of education, poor health and poor living conditions) and some very well-off families (usually business people, entrepreneurs and professionals). Housing is the marker of this disparity: small shanty-like dwellings constructed from drift wood and ‘found’ materials sot next to large multistorey American kit homes. Also reflecting the mobility of those living in the village, a large number of villagers have travelled extensively within Tonga and throughout Pacific Rim countries. Consequently, a high level of remittance is also apparent.
’Isileli is a place of dualisms, of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, of those who have travelled extensively and those who have not, those who receive regular remittance income from overseas relatives and those who do not, those who access wealth and those who do not.
[1] Extra cash is generated as farm equipment is hired out to local farmers at critical points in the agricultural cycle.
[2] Hofoa is approximately three kilometres from Nuku’alofa. Most villagers drive cars, hitch lifts with a neighbour or friend, or catch the local bus that makes a round trip to the city every hour.
[3] ’Isileli is situated in the area commonly referred to as Sopu, which is the western extremity of the town of Kolomotu’a.