In order to draw out the variations and differences in transnational connections and movements that can occur even within ostensibly ‘culturally bounded’ island societies, this section compares the different ways and means by which Tongans move through time and space.
The journeys undertaken by people from Lotofoa primarily involve movements between the Ha’apai and Tongatapu clusters. For example, in one year I found that 96 per cent of those departing the village for a location in the Kingdom of Tonga travelled to Tongatapu; 23 per cent of the total village population made a total of 180 journeys to Tongatapu; in approximately 76 per cent of households, at least one member made a journey to another island cluster of Tonga.
A distinctive feature of movement in Lotofoa is the frequency of short-term movement. A comparison of the data reveals that the people of Lotofoa (n=187) made more than three times the number of journeys within Tonga in comparison to those in Hofoa and ’Isileli. For the people of Lotofoa, travel is an essential requirement for completing certain tasks, journeys that are unnecessary for those living on Tongatapu. These journeys are most often short to medium term, and primarily focused on Tongatapu.
Religion has played a key role in facilitating journeys made by the people of Lotofoa. Religious affiliation has enabled exchange visits between church groups in Tonga and overseas, travel by church choirs to and from Lotofoa to other sites, and journeys made to attend meetings of church organisations such as the kau akonaki, the women’s assembly of the Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga, the Monarch’s church. For the people of Lotofoa, religion was the primary reason for departure from the village for 33 per cent of those not present at the time of the second census in this village, one year after the first census. Most of these absentees were attending the Konifelenisi (religious conference) celebrations of their churches in Nuku’alofa on Tongatapu. Other villagers from Lotofoa were also overseas, in New Zealand, as part of an evangelio (evangelist) contingent of young people spreading the Christian gospel.
The importance of education in fostering movement is evident to anyone present in Lotofoa during school holidays or the Christmas period. The population doubles in size as school-age children and their parents or other guardians return from Tongatapu following the conclusion of the school term or year. Over 10 per cent of those departing the village left for education purposes, and correspondingly, 11 per cent of those returning to the village cited home after education as the reason for their return.
Selling produce was also a key factor for those departing (7 per cent) and returning (6 per cent). While there is a small market in the Ha’apai capital of Pangai, the produce market in Nuku'alofa (Tongatapu) is the primary site for selling cash crops because of the superior prices paid to growers. A number of farmers and their families transported their crops on the weekly inter-island ferry and sold them in Tongatapu. Most stayed with family while in Tongatapu, undertaking other activities while there. These included processing visas for overseas stays, purchasing goods unavailable in the outer islands as well as ’alu ’eva pe (going for a visit).
The following case study is a useful example of these forms of movement out of and in to Lotofoa. In one Lotofoa family of two parents and six children, the male head, Semisi, was frequently absent. A minister in one of the poorer village churches, he travelled to New Zealand at the time I conducted a household survey. He was working and visiting his brother for three months to try to improve the family’s finances. He also attended the Konifelenisi of his church earlier in the year.
During the month of the survey, with the head of the household in New Zealand, the family faced a daily struggle to address basic subsistence needs. These were eventually met through the sale and exchange of lalanga (woven mats) made by the female head and sold in the village, access to subsistence produce (basic root vegetables) grown in a church toutu’u as the family did not have a plot of their own, and the generosity of family, neighbours and parishioners in the village who donated food and produce to the family. While Semisi’s sojourn overseas did result in his returning to the village with a small amount of cash savings, the impact of the overseas movement on the family was quite negative in the short term.
In comparison with Lotofoa, the movement of people from the village of Hofoa has much more of an ‘international’ focus. For example: 51 per cent of people departing the village travelled to an international location; in 40 per cent of households, at least one member made a journey overseas; 10 per cent of the village population made a total of 109 journeys to international locations; New Zealand was the country of destination for 61 per cent of those making international journeys. The range of international sites available to people from Hofoa are significantly greater than for those living in Lotofoa or ’Isileli. Residents of Hofoa had a greater proportion of parents, siblings and children, in particular, residing overseas. These close ties mean that activating connections is easy.
Hofoa is a conduit for international movement in that population flow involves inward moves to Hofoa from the outer islands, return movements from overseas and external moves from Hofoa to international destinations. A key factor is the number of family members from Hofoa established in international sites, who provide a larger range of available close kin ties (i.e., parental, sibling, children) of which these villagers can take advantage.
Socio-cultural factors are the most important motivators in encouraging movement among villagers from Hofoa. Visiting family or attending life-stage events such as weddings and funerals are key motivators for movement out of this village. This is also underscored by the primacy of these factors in the movement of villagers from Hofoa to other parts of Tonga. A useful example of this type of movement is demonstrated in the following case study. One household visited frequently in Hofoa comprised a woman and her four children, her friend and her friend’s child. Living in a two-room shack on the ’api kolo of her father, Mele, the female head of this household, was the only adult member of her immediate family who continued to reside in Tonga. All of her close kin lived in New Zealand, including her partner, her eight siblings, parents and their siblings. Only one year later, Mele and all her children had moved to New Zealand, leaving the ’api kolo to her friend.
During this time, two of Mele’s children moved to live in New Zealand with their grandparents. Meanwhile, her mother also returned to Tonga for two months when Mele fell ill. Mele’s father also returned for two weeks to attend a particularly important putu (funeral) upon the death of his fa’e tangāta (mother’s brother).
The story of this household is dominated by the impact of movement in the context of maintaining the social, cultural, and ritual responsibilities associated with being Tongan. With all her family living in New Zealand, Mele was obliged to facilitate, organise, participate in and contribute to all life-stage events and other cultural obligations on behalf of her family. In other words, in the context of mass out-movement, she assumed the burden of kavenga (ritual obligation) on behalf of her entire family. In one 30–day period, I recorded the following activities:
Mele attended and contributed to six putu including a week in ’Eua and extended participation in a funeral that required a week living in the household of the deceased.
In a car paid for by family in New Zealand, she daily transported kin and neighbours to town, to the market and to the tahi (ocean) to fish and do the shopping, and pick up packages at the wharf or post office.
Mele continuously ran errands and tasks during the extended chronic illness of a close extended-family member. She was involved in purchasing groceries, cooking food, transporting kin of the relative to hospital to have a baby, and ferrying other family members to and from the airport, a two-hour round trip.
She frequently organised, through international phone calls to her parents in New Zealand, for money to be sent to purchase the requisite koloa (traditional valued goods) for the funerals attended. Money was continually funnelled into the household from New Zealand to pay for these gifts and other expenses associated with the funerals she attended.
When I commented that she was very busy, Mele stated that she was having to deal with fua kavenga, meaning ‘a lot’ of kavenga, a ‘heavy’ kavenga burden. She was not bemoaning the fact that she had to fulfil these responsibilities; that is simply a given in Tongan society. Rather, she was commenting on the fact that the movement of her family overseas had greatly increased the movements she had to undertake within Tonga in order to sustain relationships on behalf of the family.
The characteristics of movement associated with the village of ’Isileli was very different to that of Lotofoa and Hofoa. Over a one–year period: 75 per cent of those leaving the village travelled to a location within Tonga; in 35 per cent of households, at least one member made a journey to other island clusters of Tonga; 15 per cent of the village population made a total of 109 journeys to locations within Tonga; Ha’apai was the destination for 61 per cent of these people.
One of the factors in this movement was the relatively recent arrival of most people living in the village. A distinctive feature of households in this village is the way in which many of the ’api’s (houses) in the village were used by groupings of family as a base while they maintain multiple homes in other places, including the islands and villages of origin as well as overseas. This process reflected the fact that ’Isileli homes were primarily established, without cash-cropping land, as an access point into the stronger economy, educational institutions and movement opportunities provided by Tongatapu and the capital Nuku’alofa. As a result, short to medium term movements of outer island residents to ’Isileli households were common and frequent.
The origins and history of ’Isileli, with its population of recent arrivals from the outer islands and distant villages of Tongatapu, underscores the character of movement into and out of this village. As a result, movement often involves a general inflow of short and medium term movements to the village from other places, but also a reciprocal and frequent movement of people from ’Isileli to other places in Tonga. ’Isileli may therefore be characterised as a ‘transit zone’, a bridge for long-term movement elsewhere.
The maintenance of links to the village of origin plays an important and continuing role in these movements. This is particularly important in the context of ’Isileli as a village without ’api uta on which to grow cash and subsistence crops. The importance of maintaining connections to fonua (people and place of origin), as well as connection to family is therefore quite apparent, making it a predominant factor in movement. Education is also an important factor in movement to the village. The process involves young people from the outer islands but also distant villages of Tongatapu staying with family or kin in ’Isileli while going to one of the major secondary schools of Tongatapu. Conversely, for those leaving ’Isileli, work was cited as a reason for movement out of the household. In the main, this involved accessing employment opportunities within Tonga and overseas.
A useful case study illustrating the types of movement prevalent in ’Isileli is represented by a family of six, two parents and four children (two of whom attend secondary school), residing in four locations: in ’Isileli; in an outlying district of Tongatapu; on a remote island in Ha’apai; and in a southern state of America. At the time of the first census survey, the family structure and location of members was as follows: Sālote, the female head, who was working as a housemaid for a pālangi couple, and one daughter attending secondary school, were living in the house in ’Isileli; Aleki, the male head, the eldest daughter and her new husband, were living on the family ’api on an island in Ha’apai, tending the production of cash and subsistence crops on the family ’api uta ‘bush allotment’; Siale, the eldest son had ’alu hola (run away) from his school class during a fundraising trip to the US and was currently living (without a visa) with a family of his kāinga in Arizona; the youngest son was boarding at one of Tonga’s secondary colleges.
This arrangement reflected the focus and situation of the family at the time. The flexibility inherent in the organisation of Tongan families however, allows for changing configurations as circumstances change. Eight months later, the family was arranged in the following way: Sālote and the youngest daughter were still living in the house in ’Isileli. At the end of the school year, the youngest son left his boarding school and joined the household. This segment of the family also travelled to the ’api in Ha’apai for Christmas; the eldest daughter and her husband continued tending the crops on the ’api uta in Ha’apai; Aleki, who had spent a short time in ’Isileli, travelled to the US to work and attend the marriage of Siale to a Tongan woman with permanent residence. Then, just five months later, the following configuration existed: Aleki joined his youngest son and daughter in the house in ’Isileli following his return from the US after six months with Siale and his new wife; the eldest daughter and her husband continued tending the cash and subsistence crops on their ’api uta in Ha’apai; Sālote travelled from ’Isileli to spend six months in the US with Siale and his new wife.
This case study demonstrates the flexibility and frequency of movement, and consequent impact on family configuration, associated with households in ’Isileli. It also highlights the need to maintain kinship and fonua links in the place of origin while also supporting the establishment of new nodes overseas. The case study also emphasises the importance of education as an activating agent for movement.