"The New Guinea Highlands": Region, Culture Area, or Fuzzy Set? [and Comments and Reply]

Contends that the literature on the New Guinea highlands lacks clarity & consensus because the criteria for delineating this fundamental category in Melanesian anthropology are vague & inconsistently applied; indeed, the New Guinea highlands can be described as a fuzzy set. Its continued use as an analytic or theoretical construct carries the risk of misleadingly implied homogeneity, with marginalization of "exceptions" in terms of social & cultural traits. A plea is made for a shift toward studies of process -- not what people are, but what they do. Comments are offered by: Paula Brown (59 West 12th St, New York, NY); Simon Harrison (U of Ulster, Londonderry BT52 1SA Northern Ireland); Brigitta Hauser-Schaublin (U of Gottingen, D-3400 Federal Republic of Germany); David M. Hayano (California State U, Northridge); Eric Hirsch (Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH England); Dan Jorgensen (U of Western Ontario, London N6A 5C2); Bruce M. Knauft (Emory U, Atlanta, GA); Rena Lederman (Princeton U, NJ); Edward Lipuma (U of Miami, Coral Gables, FL); Eugene Ogan (U of Minnesota, Minneapolis); Andrew Strathern (U of Pittsburgh, PA); James F. Weiner (U of Manchester, M13 9PL England); & George D. Westermark (Santa Clara U, CA). With the exceptions of Brown, who draws different conclusions from the evidence presented by Hays, & of Weiner, who argues that Hays does little to improve the terms of debate about Papua New Guinea societies, the commentators generally praise Hays for raising important issues, too long neglected, in anthropological debate over New Guinea societies, though many criticize one aspect or another of Hays's argument. In Reply, Hays responds to each of the commentators in some detail, clarifying points they misunderstood & reiterating the major elements of his thesis. 108 References. Adapted from the source document.