Delightful bit of mythology interpretation in view of modern understanding. Disney is really good at doing that. Much of our culture demands this type of teaching tool and let us hope to see much more of it.
Our own work has uncovered an expansive alternate history supported by nasty things called evidence that presents humanity moving through history in much this way. What about those Indians who rode red deer? I do not need to go to New Zealand to find great material.
All good stuff.
Saturday, December 17, 2016
https://fee.org/articles/does-moana-offer-economic-lessons/
delirium is what I felt watching Moana,
the 56th animated epic by Disney about a Polynesian tribe’s struggle to
survive and the young girl (not a princess, she keeps saying) who leads
them out of crisis. It is so stunningly beautiful, compelling, and
moving. Animation has never looked this great, and the story is gripping
from beginning to end.
Moana gives us the right kind of multiculturalism.It
also offers that special thing I look for in movies: a narrative that
sets me off thinking about issues of political economy. More on that in a
bit.
I’m delighted to find that moviegoers agree: Moana
has been met with high acclaim and is set to become as profitable as
any movie of its class. But its popularity surprises me somewhat: it
deals with a time, world, tradition, and people completely unfamiliar to
most American audiences, and is released in a time that is alleged to
be all about nationalist reaction to multiculturalism.
The attention to cultural
authenticity in Moana is scrupulous to the point of being
uncompromising, affecting even the voices of characters and the drawing
of their faces and bodies. I only recognized some of the symbols and
mythology because of my visit to New Zealand and encounter with Māori symbolism. Otherwise, I would have been completely lost.
But here is a tribute to certain
universal features of humanity. We need shelter. We seek security. We
need sustenance. We weave stories to account for random features of the
world that defy explanation. We have mothers and fathers who seek to
teach their children but the children have wills of their own and go
their own way.
\
In other words, Moana
gives us the right kind of multiculturalism: the opportunity to develop
the capacity to empathize with people completely unlike ourselves but
who face problems and difficulties no different than our own.
\
Is this Communism? No
When nature provides enough resources
available to feed everyone, there is no functional need to develop
private property as a technology.Now, let’s talk about the
economics of Moana. This tribe lives on a small island (probably now
American Samoa) that seems to provide for all their needs. There are
enough coconuts, fish, fruits, and resources for shelter for everyone.
They work as a community to harvest and provide for themselves. We are
told that they hold everything in common.
Are we watching the unfolding of some
Rousseauian myth of the state of nature? I don’t think so. They do have
private dwellings, private in the sense that “this is his” and “that is
hers.” But the main resources on the island are not given property
titles. Competent cultural anthropologists have documented many such
cases in small tribes. When nature provides enough resources available
to feed everyone, there is no functional need to develop private
property as a technology in the sense we think of it today. In other
words, this is not communism but merely a social acknowledgement of the
island’s abundance.
The Downside of the Commons
In the film, the people who are
charged with harvesting coconuts discover a blight has ruined them. The
same day, fishermen return with empty nets. They try to fish other parts
of the island with no results. The food in general seems to be running
out. People start to panic, and demand answers from the tribal chief.
My immediate thought ran to the
theory of the “tragedy of the commons.” This tribe was very successful
but nature cannot provide for human needs without limit. At some point,
overgrazing, overfishing, overharvesting, and overconsumption lead to
shortages. Without capital investment, a complexification of division of
labor, the emergence of the money economy, and (above all) the security
of private ownership, humanity cannot survive with a growing population
and shrinking resources.
The islanders believe that they are
experiencing what others on other islands have experienced, a sudden
loss of prosperity. How to explain it? There is no Adam Smith around to
provide a scientific answer.
Every myth has a reason for its existence. Here
is where the myth-weaving begins. It is widely believed that all
islands were created by the goddess Te Fiti, who created life and land
from her powerful heart. One day, the demigod Maui stole the heart,
thinking that he would give it away to humanity. But immediately, the
island turned to darkness and a blight began to spread. He then loses
the heart to the ocean.
One thousand years later, this blight has finally arrived to the
island where Moana Waialiki lives. She is chosen by the ocean to find
Maui and help him return the heart to its rightful owner.
It’s a beautiful story, and it is
roughly accurate as regards the ancient myths of these native peoples
(though some critics have denounced the caricature of the demigod Maui).
Every myth has a reason for its
existence. This stuff isn’t just manufactured for entertainment. It is
designed to account for realities that defy other explanation.
My immediate thought when I was
watching was exactly this. The beautiful myth that forms the plot of
“Moana” was a substitute for modern economic thinking. The tribe
experienced a tragedy of the commons. They needed capitalism. But the
transition from common ownership to private ownership would also mean a
dramatic cultural change, and there was no time for that: they needed
food now.
Island-Hopping
Moana is warned to never go beyond
the reef but she discovers a hidden cave full of boats, indicating that
her people are not mere island dwellers. They were once journeyers who
went on adventures, moving from island to island. This also fits with
the anthropological record. The natives peoples of this region did move
from place to place, and my naïve mind always wondered why. This film
provides the answer: they moved to find resources when faced with
shortages.
The suffering of all islands began with the infringement on Te Fiti’s self ownership of her own heart. After
all, it is not some vague longing for adventure that causes whole
tribes to brave the seas on small boats. It is the economic fear of
starvation, and that, in turn, comes about from an institutional failure
to develop social norms delineating ownership rights.
Note this critical fact: the
suffering of all islands began with the infringement on Te Fiti’s self
ownership of her own heart. From that one crime flowed all the rest. The
sin had to be propitiated. In the Disney version of the myth – expected
spoiler! – the goddess eventually does get back her heart and then uses
her powers to spread abundance throughout all the islands of the earth.
Te Fiti’s heart was a fitting
metaphor for what was discovered in Europe in the late middle ages and
following: the best and most peaceful way to provide for everyone’s
needs is through institutional change – not journeys and struggles and
panics but through the emergence of the market economy that generates
new wealth to feed a growing population.
The market economy begins with private property, and clearly Te Fiti
is a fan, as we see when she so benevolently restores the great magical
hook of the demigod Maui. He alone holds it in his hands, much to his
delight and ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment