What do you think?
Rate this book
Islands of History
Marshall Sahlins centers these essays on islands—Hawaii, Fiji, New Zealand—whose histories have intersected with European history. But he is also concerned with the insular thinking in Western scholarship that creates false dichotomies between past and present, between structure and event, between the individual and society. Sahlins's provocative reflections form a powerful critique of Western history and anthropology.
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
11 people are currently reading
609 people want to read
About the author
Marshall Sahlins
52 books148 followersMarshall David Sahlins was an American cultural anthropologist best known for his ethnographic work in the Pacific and for his contributions to anthropological theory. He was the Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 10, 2014
Marshall Sahlins' Islands of History (1985) is an interesting (and currently relevant) intervention in the early 1980s academic contention over the cultural turn. The book is a compilation of five lectures given between 1981-1983. As someone with limited exposure to anthropological methods,it was a difficult read due to heavy jargon and assumed knowledge. There are two aspects of Sahlins' work important this review will focus on: the purpose of his research and problems in its analysis.
Sahlins' methodology is centered on how history and culture are in a constant interplay. Rather than categorize culture as static and history as dialectical, he states, "History is culturally ordered...[and] culture is historically altered in action."(vii) Meaning of words, actions, and events are continually being re-valued by cultural signifiers and reinterpreted through the funnel of historical memory.(xi) In his analysis for performative and prescriptive society, Sahlins constructs a problematic set of arguments. While noting that a society holds both performative and prescriptive characteristics, Chapter 1 argues that Hawaiian society is primarily performative. He centers this argument around (what he interprets as) the erotic behavior of Hawaiian women. He states, "If we think merely of 'ideology' or 'superstructure,' we deceive ourselves: this is a political economy of love. Love is the infrastructure. The erotic is the pragmatic--in a double sense...sexual conquests are means to a variety of material advantages." (19) Sahlins seems unaware that marriage under European patriarchy is used as a means for alliances and material gain. He further exclaims that "sex was everything" in Hawaiian structure.(26) Why is one society more erotic than the other? In which society (current or historical) is 'sex' not relevant? I think the root of Sahlins' Eurocentric deduction lies in his "enthusiasm over the discovery that peoples of the Pacific...indeed had a history." (xviii) After all, it is history that people of the Pacific were/are aware of and, therefore, are not in need of being discovered. Without ignoring Sahlins' intention entirely, I think the concept of "erotic histories" and "a political economy of love" are valued concepts that should be researched. Sahlins also argues that performative and prescriptive structures work side by side and one is not more significant than the other, defining them as different historicities. Nevertheless, arguing that Hawaiian society is based on performative (instinctual and emotional) meanings, it falls within a pattern of troupes commonly used in colonizer narratives. Sahlins' is not arguing that Hawaiians are irrational or without a system. But if his analysis engages with known constructions of Euro-colonizer alterity, he is required to demonstrate why his analysis is not a reiteration of Western academic violence.
In a well-stated review by KR Howe, he states, “As a consequence, these lectures/chapters consciously reveal more about the thought processes whereby Sahlins has come to discover some ''events" in Pacific history and to use his findings to challenge some commonly held theoretical positions regarding the role and nature of history and anthropology-offering, among other things, a "symbolic dialogue of history"-than they add to our understanding of the history of the Pacific islands.”
{add more...}
Sahlins' methodology is centered on how history and culture are in a constant interplay. Rather than categorize culture as static and history as dialectical, he states, "History is culturally ordered...[and] culture is historically altered in action."(vii) Meaning of words, actions, and events are continually being re-valued by cultural signifiers and reinterpreted through the funnel of historical memory.(xi) In his analysis for performative and prescriptive society, Sahlins constructs a problematic set of arguments. While noting that a society holds both performative and prescriptive characteristics, Chapter 1 argues that Hawaiian society is primarily performative. He centers this argument around (what he interprets as) the erotic behavior of Hawaiian women. He states, "If we think merely of 'ideology' or 'superstructure,' we deceive ourselves: this is a political economy of love. Love is the infrastructure. The erotic is the pragmatic--in a double sense...sexual conquests are means to a variety of material advantages." (19) Sahlins seems unaware that marriage under European patriarchy is used as a means for alliances and material gain. He further exclaims that "sex was everything" in Hawaiian structure.(26) Why is one society more erotic than the other? In which society (current or historical) is 'sex' not relevant? I think the root of Sahlins' Eurocentric deduction lies in his "enthusiasm over the discovery that peoples of the Pacific...indeed had a history." (xviii) After all, it is history that people of the Pacific were/are aware of and, therefore, are not in need of being discovered. Without ignoring Sahlins' intention entirely, I think the concept of "erotic histories" and "a political economy of love" are valued concepts that should be researched. Sahlins also argues that performative and prescriptive structures work side by side and one is not more significant than the other, defining them as different historicities. Nevertheless, arguing that Hawaiian society is based on performative (instinctual and emotional) meanings, it falls within a pattern of troupes commonly used in colonizer narratives. Sahlins' is not arguing that Hawaiians are irrational or without a system. But if his analysis engages with known constructions of Euro-colonizer alterity, he is required to demonstrate why his analysis is not a reiteration of Western academic violence.
In a well-stated review by KR Howe, he states, “As a consequence, these lectures/chapters consciously reveal more about the thought processes whereby Sahlins has come to discover some ''events" in Pacific history and to use his findings to challenge some commonly held theoretical positions regarding the role and nature of history and anthropology-offering, among other things, a "symbolic dialogue of history"-than they add to our understanding of the history of the Pacific islands.”
{add more...}
October 21, 2014
Antropologijos studija per Cook'o susitikimus su Havajų vietiniais polineziečiais. Civilizacijų sandūros aiškinimas pateikiamas išaiškinimu, kodėl polineziečiai pirmąjį kartą išvydę Cook'ą ir visą ekspediciją juos garbina kaip dievus, moterys veržiasi su keliautojais permiegoti, ir vagia visus daiktus, kas tik priklauso anglams. Arba kodėl paskutinį (trečią) kartą havajiečiai susitikę su tais pačiais keliautojais jų nekenčia, žudo ir kai kuriuos net išverda bei suvalgo.
Bent jau dalinai suprastas "laukinių" chaosas, iš pirmo žvilgsnio nesuprantamas vakariečiui, šioje studijoje aiškinamas ir perteikiamas kaip pavyzdys, kaip galima aiškinti daugelio civilizacijų (kaip bendražmogiškus) susikūrimo ir sukūrimo pavyzdžius. Siejamos paralelės su senovės graikų (Mikėnų), Romos, indėnų, Afrikos genčių civilizacijomis.
Perskaičius veikalą tampa aišku, kodėl fidžietis prasčiokas, sakydamas savo vyriausiajam vadui "suvalgyk mane", šypsosi; kodėl maorių kariai britų forposte paslapčiomis nulauždavo vėliavos kotą, bet pačios vėliavos neliesdavo; kodėl havajų moterys veržėsi permiegoti su Cook'u, jo jūreiviais ir kariais ir t.t.
Knyga patiks tam, kam patinka Froidas (pvz. "Totemas ir tabu") ir kolektyvinė psichologija, Le Roy Ladurie ("Oksitanijos kaimas Montaju") ir civilizacijų istorija ir be abejo antropologams.
3/5 todėl, kad vietomis vertimas išeina iš krašto. Ne vien jau todėl, kad neįmanoma suprasti, ką reiškia hipergamija ar hipogamija, bet ir dėl pernelyg skubotos sintaksės ir pernelyg pritempto prie moksliškumo teksto.
Bent jau dalinai suprastas "laukinių" chaosas, iš pirmo žvilgsnio nesuprantamas vakariečiui, šioje studijoje aiškinamas ir perteikiamas kaip pavyzdys, kaip galima aiškinti daugelio civilizacijų (kaip bendražmogiškus) susikūrimo ir sukūrimo pavyzdžius. Siejamos paralelės su senovės graikų (Mikėnų), Romos, indėnų, Afrikos genčių civilizacijomis.
Perskaičius veikalą tampa aišku, kodėl fidžietis prasčiokas, sakydamas savo vyriausiajam vadui "suvalgyk mane", šypsosi; kodėl maorių kariai britų forposte paslapčiomis nulauždavo vėliavos kotą, bet pačios vėliavos neliesdavo; kodėl havajų moterys veržėsi permiegoti su Cook'u, jo jūreiviais ir kariais ir t.t.
Knyga patiks tam, kam patinka Froidas (pvz. "Totemas ir tabu") ir kolektyvinė psichologija, Le Roy Ladurie ("Oksitanijos kaimas Montaju") ir civilizacijų istorija ir be abejo antropologams.
3/5 todėl, kad vietomis vertimas išeina iš krašto. Ne vien jau todėl, kad neįmanoma suprasti, ką reiškia hipergamija ar hipogamija, bet ir dėl pernelyg skubotos sintaksės ir pernelyg pritempto prie moksliškumo teksto.
January 21, 2008
Marshall Sahlins is one of the most encompassing American Anthropological minds. What ever one has to say about the final outcome of his analysis, it is always compelling. In these collected essays of Polynesian historical ethnology, Sahlins continually reminds us of the most important realization of anthropology: that the conceptual structures we use to substantiate our contemporary existence are as much myths as those of precolonial Hawai'i.
September 10, 2016
Y así es como me enamoré de Marshall Sahlins.
November 26, 2024
An exceptionally boring and dry book of seemingly irrelevant description of Hawaiian and Polynesian ‘first contacts’, saved by a fantastic final chapter that finally actually says something about the preceding chapters and gives them some purpose. The thesis of the book is essentially; All events have subjective cultural meanings, and we need to move past anthropological binaries in our interpretations and descriptions of events. I.e. synthesis, not thesis vs antithesis.
The final sentence of the book sums it up well, “the indissoluble synthesis of such as pst and present, system and event, structure and history”. May I also add culture and history/perception and sensation etc. every event is culturally coded and can only be understood and perceived by a persons prior experience, schema of the world and cultural understanding. I.e. the Hawaiians can not conceivably interpret Cook’s landing as “a British man sailing the seas to make maps and see what’s out there and then returning home to report back”, but can instead only do so in their cultural schema and global awareness, I.e. that this man must have some relation to the gods (even though I’m always sceptical of such anthropological claims that this is how colonists were perceived as it sounds very colonial and arrogant, I.e. they think of me as gods because they’re so simple minded etc etc. but in this context by Sahlins it’s crucial to his point and not asserted with any malice, and I’m not an expert enough on the primary sources on Hawaiian colonisation to claim that this wasn’t how the interaction went.
The book has worth for its conclusions but I will definitely not be in a rush to read it again anytime soon
The final sentence of the book sums it up well, “the indissoluble synthesis of such as pst and present, system and event, structure and history”. May I also add culture and history/perception and sensation etc. every event is culturally coded and can only be understood and perceived by a persons prior experience, schema of the world and cultural understanding. I.e. the Hawaiians can not conceivably interpret Cook’s landing as “a British man sailing the seas to make maps and see what’s out there and then returning home to report back”, but can instead only do so in their cultural schema and global awareness, I.e. that this man must have some relation to the gods (even though I’m always sceptical of such anthropological claims that this is how colonists were perceived as it sounds very colonial and arrogant, I.e. they think of me as gods because they’re so simple minded etc etc. but in this context by Sahlins it’s crucial to his point and not asserted with any malice, and I’m not an expert enough on the primary sources on Hawaiian colonisation to claim that this wasn’t how the interaction went.
The book has worth for its conclusions but I will definitely not be in a rush to read it again anytime soon
October 22, 2024
"just proposed a 'naive phenomenology of symbolic action' to counteract stagnant structuralism and binaristic oppositions in anthropological theory (also mark of old school structuralism... #saussure)
i mean. i am a hater but maybe i do love social theory
shit kind of based
structure/agency is so 80s but like... never gets old for me
maybe it does but doesn't stop my engagement with the #literature"
Kind of tedious at points but I think the last chapter is an interesting contribution to debates and a meaningful corrective and addendum to more orthodox structuralist theorising. Idk how to feel about the whole 'Hawaiians thought Captain Cook was the god Lono' thing... need to read Obeyesekere to get up to date on the discourse...
i mean. i am a hater but maybe i do love social theory
shit kind of based
structure/agency is so 80s but like... never gets old for me
maybe it does but doesn't stop my engagement with the #literature"
Kind of tedious at points but I think the last chapter is an interesting contribution to debates and a meaningful corrective and addendum to more orthodox structuralist theorising. Idk how to feel about the whole 'Hawaiians thought Captain Cook was the god Lono' thing... need to read Obeyesekere to get up to date on the discourse...
December 18, 2020
Found this in a syllabus and thought it would be an interesting read. Examining the historical / cultural event (which are apparently antithetical to each other) of Cook landing in Hawaii a second time after his departure, when he was killed by the Hawaiians is truly one of the strangest events in history. One figures out the different cultural significance of the crossover only after getting acquainted with what the familiarity of his presence means for the Hawaiians, and this book is definitely an academic (and too noncasual for ordinary readers) anthropological analysis of just how culture and history can collide.
October 16, 2017
Sahlins at it again. Great book.
May 13, 2022
read it for university
September 20, 2025
Unintelligibly brilliant
March 18, 2022
'COS YOUUU MY PREACIOUS BITCH BOYYYY ARE TRIPPIN' BAAAAAALLSSSS!!!! I just wanted to pass an history exam but this book is written in the most dreamlike and trippy style I've ever read. Like...wtf?
April 20, 2013
Excellent, and in many ways a model monograph.
I read this several times while writing my dissertation, and decided to revisit after a recent vacation to Hawaii.
What makes this so good is that Sahlins takes on big themes and deals with them in a relatively small compass.
His argument, of course, is somewhat dated--to those days when structure and agency were seemingly at odds. He won, by helping solve the problem, so it can sometimes seem irrelevant. But it i still refreshing to visit.
(Interestingly, his arguments significantly overlap with the symbolic interactionists, a group of sociologists at Chicago, where Sahlins taught in the anthropology department, but he does not cite them at all. He does, however turn often to French historians--no surprise given their interest in social structures.)
Sahlins was trying to reconcile anthropology, which had recently become bedazzled by structuralism, with history. Structuralists argued that structures--myths, institutions, traditions--organized everyday life. But this made society so static, the question became, How does history ever happen. Sahlins (and others) argued that the answer was in quotidian life. (NB: this also presaged the turn to practice, which has been so dominant in the historical sciences over the last 30 years). Every time an action happened, the meanings created by structures were at risk--when ideas met the messy real world, they could be forced to change.
Sahlins called this the 'structure of the conjucture,' which was a good phrase, although hinted at his tendency to slip into jargon. The first paragraph of the book,, in particular, is tough slogging. It is part of a chapter that, however, does a good job of introducing the book's main themes, without revealing too much of the richness forthcoming.
The first actual chapter deals with the reception of Captain Cook in Waimea, Hawaii, and the easy way that the female Islanders made sex available to the European men, sometimes almost forcing it. Sahlins argues that sex was more than a way of solidifying structural relations, the way it had been shown in anthropology for the previous decades, but of creating new social structures--thus the women (and the men who sometimes urged them on) were not just playing a role, but creating a new order (one that would bring down traditional Hawaiian society).
Not as focused on the Hawaiian Islands, the next chapter argues that this view of anthropology can be reconciled with notions of historical change.
The third chapter, as called out in its last sentence, is a recasting of Durkheimian anthropology (and Weber, too, it would seem). Shalins argues that central to the idea of kingship in Hawaii is usurpation--one gains legitimacy exactly because one is an outside who overrules the current kings.
Which is of course important to the central chapter, the next one, on the death of Cook. The Captain performed the role of the good Lono perfectly--until he didn't, returning to Hawaii at a time contrary to myth. Everyone involved, then, had to use the structures they new to address an unusal and unexpected circumstance. In this case, the Hawaiians killed their god--after all, this was a way of legitimizing power.
All of these interactions, Sahlins points out in the final chapter, put structural categories at risk, and eventually changed them. Women on the boats ate with men, which had been forbidden (or tabu), but did not suffer--those who did not contract venereal disease even prospered; commoners also challenged divine power--which Sahlins had earlier shown was very strong in Hawaii--through their contact with the European visitors--thus, again, altering the history of the Hawaiian Islands.
I read this several times while writing my dissertation, and decided to revisit after a recent vacation to Hawaii.
What makes this so good is that Sahlins takes on big themes and deals with them in a relatively small compass.
His argument, of course, is somewhat dated--to those days when structure and agency were seemingly at odds. He won, by helping solve the problem, so it can sometimes seem irrelevant. But it i still refreshing to visit.
(Interestingly, his arguments significantly overlap with the symbolic interactionists, a group of sociologists at Chicago, where Sahlins taught in the anthropology department, but he does not cite them at all. He does, however turn often to French historians--no surprise given their interest in social structures.)
Sahlins was trying to reconcile anthropology, which had recently become bedazzled by structuralism, with history. Structuralists argued that structures--myths, institutions, traditions--organized everyday life. But this made society so static, the question became, How does history ever happen. Sahlins (and others) argued that the answer was in quotidian life. (NB: this also presaged the turn to practice, which has been so dominant in the historical sciences over the last 30 years). Every time an action happened, the meanings created by structures were at risk--when ideas met the messy real world, they could be forced to change.
Sahlins called this the 'structure of the conjucture,' which was a good phrase, although hinted at his tendency to slip into jargon. The first paragraph of the book,, in particular, is tough slogging. It is part of a chapter that, however, does a good job of introducing the book's main themes, without revealing too much of the richness forthcoming.
The first actual chapter deals with the reception of Captain Cook in Waimea, Hawaii, and the easy way that the female Islanders made sex available to the European men, sometimes almost forcing it. Sahlins argues that sex was more than a way of solidifying structural relations, the way it had been shown in anthropology for the previous decades, but of creating new social structures--thus the women (and the men who sometimes urged them on) were not just playing a role, but creating a new order (one that would bring down traditional Hawaiian society).
Not as focused on the Hawaiian Islands, the next chapter argues that this view of anthropology can be reconciled with notions of historical change.
The third chapter, as called out in its last sentence, is a recasting of Durkheimian anthropology (and Weber, too, it would seem). Shalins argues that central to the idea of kingship in Hawaii is usurpation--one gains legitimacy exactly because one is an outside who overrules the current kings.
Which is of course important to the central chapter, the next one, on the death of Cook. The Captain performed the role of the good Lono perfectly--until he didn't, returning to Hawaii at a time contrary to myth. Everyone involved, then, had to use the structures they new to address an unusal and unexpected circumstance. In this case, the Hawaiians killed their god--after all, this was a way of legitimizing power.
All of these interactions, Sahlins points out in the final chapter, put structural categories at risk, and eventually changed them. Women on the boats ate with men, which had been forbidden (or tabu), but did not suffer--those who did not contract venereal disease even prospered; commoners also challenged divine power--which Sahlins had earlier shown was very strong in Hawaii--through their contact with the European visitors--thus, again, altering the history of the Hawaiian Islands.
October 9, 2014
Read this for a grad class.
So far, this has been the most enjoyable book I've read for my theory class. It actually made sense. Which is new.
His story is fantastic and super interesting. I still have basically the same concern with cultural history that I did coming into this book, however, so only three stars. I'm still concerned with just how to acknowledge the difficulties - how to be certain that cultural evidence is accurate, whether what people say they believe is what they actually believe, for example.
Anyway yeah. I'm interested in coming back to this book in the future.
So far, this has been the most enjoyable book I've read for my theory class. It actually made sense. Which is new.
His story is fantastic and super interesting. I still have basically the same concern with cultural history that I did coming into this book, however, so only three stars. I'm still concerned with just how to acknowledge the difficulties - how to be certain that cultural evidence is accurate, whether what people say they believe is what they actually believe, for example.
Anyway yeah. I'm interested in coming back to this book in the future.
February 26, 2016
Sahlins detailed, well thought out and aptly used sources end in essays that are enjoyable but demand your whole attention. He paints a fascinating picture of different (or similar?) events in Polynesian islands after they came into contact with early explorers. Since reading about Cook's journeys was what sparked my interest in history once upon a time, this seemed like a wonderful transition to the same events but with more critical eye. I started this book to get back into cultural anthropology and probably could have chosen an easier piece. It was compelling enough that I definitely want to give it another go once I familiarize myself with the subject (and jargon) a bit more.
January 10, 2019
Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins uses examples of early European/Islander exchange in Hawaii, New Zealand, and Fiji to argue that history is a combination of events that occur within subjective constructs. Understanding and meaning can only be attempted through the recognition that history is what happened viewed through cultural, cosmological, and societal lenses of individuals and groups. Furthermore, not unlike words themselves, these lenses appear to be static even as they themselves are subject to outside influences over time.
Read
November 3, 2007I missed the review on the back cover which says 'opaque'.
Interesting but obscure academic trivia throughout.
?Why did the Hawaiians throw the women at foreign sailors?
They thought they were gods of their legend. Next chapter.
Interesting but obscure academic trivia throughout.
?Why did the Hawaiians throw the women at foreign sailors?
They thought they were gods of their legend. Next chapter.
December 11, 2008
Excellent anthropological history of the Hawaiian islands and first contact with Captain Cook.
July 16, 2014
When anthropology meets dialectics
April 20, 2015
Anther attempt of redefining the realm of the "cultural" contemporaneous with Geertz's famous attempt. While Geertz follows Weber and Schutz, Sahlins in this book follows Durkheim and Levi-Strauss.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews