The rhetorical tactic of kaona immediately brought to mind Ma'at for me. They aren't specifically the same - Ma'at is more of a code of conduct and Kaona is more an actual rhetorical tactic used in specific writing - but they are both very distinctive rhetorical processes that belong to 'other' societies, or rather, non Aristotelian based cultures.
Kaona is so intrinsically linked with Hawaiian culture. The actual use of puns or dual meanings and layers is not unique to Hawaiian culture or writing, but its use as a rallying point against oppression and colonialism is quite unique
I found it very interesting that Kaona is an expected thing, that a good author or rhetorician is compelled to use it if they are to be seen as knowledgeable or skilled (pg 101). Also interesting is how large a role the audience plays in the use of Kaona, the audience is to look for and detect the meaning that the writer or composer laid down in the text and when they do they become and 'insider' with 'exclusive' knowledge (pg 101).
Something that I personally find fascinating is that if this sort of exclusivity and non-openness was demonstrated in a 'western' or Aristotelian based piece of rhetoric today, people would be offended. So why is that exclusivity praised in 'other' form of rhetoric? Shouldn't we give fair treatment to all tactics in all rhetoric?
I can assume it is because those 'other' cultures and their rhetoric has been overlooked or perhaps even repressed in past times, that would be the most obvious answer....But I'm curious as to people's opinions as to why that is - I don't have a specific opinion or answer, it is simply something I have noticed.
I like your observation of the somewhat hypocritical attitude of the Westerners in regards to the exclusivity and non-openness that was demonstrated at the time, which would be frowned upon today. Like you, I do not have an answer either, but I would like to express my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI would think that at least part of the reason why this discrimination was so prevalent is due to the rather radical religious beliefs that the colonizers had at the time. Like evidenced by the text, the colonizers wanted to eradicate the Hawaiian culture as much as possible, banning the use of their language and censoring Queen Lili’oukalani as much as possible. Since the Natives used mele and mo’olelo “…which were often deemed “obscene” for their use of sexual kaona” (104), the natural reaction from the missionaries was to ban these, in their eyes, vulgar form of expression. The missionaries, unlike Queen Lili’oukalani, had little room for another type of rhetoric, and only wanted to spread their own religion and culture because it was, in their mind, the only right one. Today, we are generally a lot more open to different cultures and rather want to look at them with fascination and with intention of learning something from them.
This is of course only an opinion, but from what I have learned from my history classes here, I’d say it shouldn’t be too far off.
I found this post and article is very interesting; especially how the author is expected to use Kaona, and that the readers are looking for it. I found it interesting and wish there was and example of the text that we could experience, whether we could see the double meaning in her writing. I don’t really find this completely different from what we have been taught about rhetoric’s in Norway. Where we learn to analyze non-fiction (there is not really an English word for it, but that is the closest translation), the key point is to figure out what knowledge you are missing, and how it is hidden to you. It is not used in the same way as Kaona, but your question made me think of it, and how frustrating it is, to know that you are not able to fully understand everything, or how smart you feel when you do.
ReplyDelete