INTRODUCTION

"Change We Must!" declared Nana Veary1. Yet she remained in touch with the foundation of who she was, and what Hawai`i was. While change takes place inevitably, there also remains unchanged a culture deeply ingrained within the society. How do we change and not lose who we are?

Proper changes must occur in three "theaters" of Hawaiian life, each at the same time. The first is in the "mind-set" - in the emotional and psychological mind of the Hawai`i society. The second is in the intellect - broadening the examination of possibilities, challenging all current constraints and releasing the imagination. The third is in a clearer understanding and resolution of the favored deep culture which permeates the society and forms the foundation for all long lasting systems.

1. THE MIND-SET

The surest way for a people to undergo change is to have them prepared psychologically and emotionally for such change, to want the change, to hunger for the change. Are the Hawai`i people ready to make changes? Is there a "critical mass" to influence the rest toward accepting such changes? Have we identified the "critical need" for change? Who are the Hawai`i people calling for change? And among those calling, who are really prepared and bold enough to seek the answers to this call? What are the people hoping to achieve by change? Are there common visions? What is the vision of those who have been in Hawai`i the longest, the native Hawaiian people? What is the vision of the short timers, those in Hawai`i over the last 10 years? The vision of one's changes are not necessarily the same as the vision of the other! But can we identify commonalities among those calling for change? What are they? To what extent is the "Aloha Spirit" commonly identified? How much of it is to be retained in a "changed" Hawai`i? Is there a Hawaiian mind-set for change?

Let's take a quick survey of the calls for change. One clearly identified sector in our society is the Native Hawaiian communities calling for Hawaiian rights and sovereignty.

Native Hawaiian advocates are split on two sides of a spectrum, divided between a "nation within a nation" and an "independent nation" model. The "nation within" supporters declare that Native Hawaiians should be able to form their own government, controlling certain designated parcels of lands, and be accorded the right to exercise control over their own institutions, economic development, ways of life and to maintain and develop their identities, language and religions. However, they will remain citizens of the United States of America, respecting the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court as the final arbiter of that Constitution, the U.S. President as the chief Executive over this "nation," etc. Their "territorial claim" is limited to portions or all of the "ceded" lands. The "self" in self-determination is defined here exclusively as the indigenous people. "Determination" or choice is for Hawai`i to remain a part of the United States of America.

On the other side of that spectrum are advocates of complete independence from the United States and the re-creation of a nation of a multitude of people of various races. Such a people would be free to exercise control over its territory, which includes the Hawaiian archipelago, Kalama (Johnston) atoll, as well as the 200 mile exclusive economic zone defined by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas.² Advocates of complete independence generally argue that the "self" should be limited not to any particular ethnic community or grouping of people, not to any particular race, but to a people who relate to Hawai`i as the place of their singular loyalty and allegiance, to those people who have become associated with the `aina (land, society, country), becoming a kama`aina, keiki o ka `aina or "local".³

While those are indeed serious differences in approaches to Hawaiian sovereignty, there are also many similarities. Both "nation within" and independence advocates generally agree that the Native Hawaiian people should be entitled to special rights
- the right of self-definition,
- the right of participation in decisions affecting them,
- the right of self-government to some degree,
- territorial rights including the natural resources contained within, and
- cultural rights.

Reports from local media sponsored polls as well as a recent plebiscite among Native Hawaiians reflect widespread support for Native Hawaiian rights and the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. The very creation of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the inclusion in the 1978 State Constitution of the protection of cultural, subsistence and religious practices of the Native Hawaiians reflect the larger society support for Hawaiian rights. But there has yet to be clear and comprehensive distinction of what those rights ought to be. At most, what is becoming clear is the development of a process to identify those rights - through an elective process in which the Native Hawaiians elect from among themselves, delegates to formulate proposals to be placed before Native Hawaiians for approval. That process has come to a temporary halt at the legislature.

There are other communities calling for change - the environmentalists, the peace advocates, the religious communities, business, labor, education, civil and human rights and others. Many overlap one another and their goals are generally multi-purpose.

Environmental, peace, civil and human rights communities are very often joined in their advocacy. For example, the objections to the dumping of oil-laced soil from Hawai`i to the Republic of the Marshall Islands involved people from all these communities. Likewise are the protest against the firing of the plutonium loaded Cassini into space, the desecration through bombing of Makua and Kahanaha`iki valleys by the Army, or the refusal to clean the Kamaka land of Waikane valley, but to confiscate the land from the family. These are protests which generally collected these communities. They are calling, not only for specific action or no action, in certain cases, but more importantly, for a changed approach to dealing with nature and other human beings of the world.

On the other hand, military, finance, business and industry, often including labor unions, are calling for changes in the other direction - expanded development in military weaponry and more accurate and efficient use of current arms, entry into untapped foreign markets, removal of trade controls, economic growth through outside directed investments, and development of environmental resources, especially in third world countries,

Both sides of this dichotomy are urging changes, either in the pace or in the direction of their particular activity. Those directions, however, are generally in opposite directions.

In the face of these many contenders of change, what of the mass of Hawai`i's people? Is there that "critical mass" in one or another direction?

Other than the Hawaiian rights and sovereignty issues, where else are there such wide support for change? In what areas do we have the proper mind set for change? Media attention has moved from the "thumbs up" campaign led by the major banks calling for positive attitudes to the "economic jump start" campaign led by the Governor and the banks, calling for greater investments in our major export industry - tourism. But are these campaigns widely based or merely generated from the power centers of Honolulu?

Other than the general agreement that the Hawaiian issue must be resolved, are there any other broad-based consensus for change? It doesn't appear to be, not because there is not sufficient discontent, but because there is no broad vision being set forth, other than what emerges from the Hawaiian discussion on independence.

2.Broadening the Examination of Possibilities

A frog sitting in the well, knows all he wants and needs to know of his world. He could tell you the water quality, temperature, algae growth, and the bugs, twigs, and grass that shares the well with him. He knows his world so thoroughly, he could even describe sky as it passes above the opening of the well over him. His plans are based upon his appreciation of his world. He already knows what he'll have for dinner! But imagine, by some fluke, he hopes onto the bucket as it goes skyward, and plops out on the ground. Mr. Frog now sees a different world. He sees mountains, trees, sky and clouds stretching completely above him, birds and bees, strange animals of all size, shapes and sounds, insects he have never seen before. He reconsiders his dinner menu!

Are we examining the best options facing Hawai`i? How do we know unless we identify our perceived and real constraints? What are the political constraints - the United States constitution, U.S. Court decisions, a sense of national allegiance which prevents us from violating American doctrines? What are the unspoken fears from foreign military and economic aggression? Are there "untouchable" principles such as the sanctity of private property and the principle of capitalism? Do we dare speak openly of socialism? Are our constraints appropriate to an intellectual examination? Can we limit our vision to the insides of our wells when confronted with such major questions as the future of Hawai`i?

Let's take a look at the two extremes. On one side, we find no change to the present constraints. The Constitutional and legislative structures remain in place, business continue as usual under principles of capitalism and lassie faire economy, the environment remain essentially an item of property for the manipulation of individuals, corporations or government, the United States sits as a watchdog over its "national interest" as it defines that term when it chooses to, all taxing authorities stay as they are, . . .

The recent conclusion of the Governor's task force on the economy attempted a bold stroke for change in addressing the economy, flying high at 30,000 feet to get the "broad picture" rather than at the crop-duster level4. Yet, they choose only to fly within American airspace, failing to question many of the underlying controls which strangle the economy, such as American foreign relations which impact upon Hawai`i's trade with other countries.5 The frog stays in the well.

On the other extreme, we find all of these constraints removed. Hawai`i decouples from the United States of America and acts as an independent state. The links to the United States as well as to other foreign countries are a matter of negotiations between sovereigns. The U.S. government no longer have any right of preemption over foreign or interstate matters. Thus, trade with foreign countries (including the U.S.) becomes a matter of international agreement with Hawai`i as a direct negotiating party. Our political relations with other countries develops by and for Hawai`i. Immigration, visitor control, visa issuance, airport and harbor uses, custom inspection, all fall under the authority of the Hawaiian national government. Hawai`i joins the United Nations, reestablish its membership in the Universal Postal Union, and review and select what other international governmental organization it joins.

Under this second scenario, Hawai`i develops its own monetary policy, control its own foreigner investments decisions, print its own currency, and establish its own banking regulations. It may even develop a specialty in international money, banking and finance - a Geneva of the Pacific free from U.S. jurisdiction.

Having unhitched itself to the U.S., Hawai`i could develop its own program of national security, starting fresh by recovering the massive amounts of lands occupied by the U.S. military. We would, of course, expect a decline in population merely by the departure of U.S. military personnel and dependents. With that decrease would come a decrease in Hawai`i's housing crises as well as the load on our governmental services, including education, roads, health and sanitation, courts, etc.

Military spending would, of course, decrease, and Hawai`i would not receive Federal funds for highways, library services, etc. But all Federal taxes would be canceled. The Hawaiian Nation would revamp its taxing structure to undertake an increased role in government services or encourage the private sector to pick up much of those services.

Hawai`i would be able to control its marine waters up to 12 miles from shore, rather than the current 3 mile limitation, and for economic purposes, up to 200 miles beyond the islands. Hawaiian airspace and telecommunications would fall under Hawaiian jurisdiction.

That discussion points out the extremes. There is a whole set of other options between such extremes. Political realignments are occurring all over the world constantly. Why is it not possible for negotiations with the U.S. government for greater autonomy of Hawai`i, such as control over our foreign trade, immigration, and population but continued use of Hawai`i as a military post for U.S. forces? Why is it not possible for other points of negotiations of our future relationship with the U.S. as well as other national and inter-governmental entities? ⁶

3. THE FAVORED DEEP CULTURE

How do we remain ourselves yet meet the challenges of change?

There are cultural codes in the collective sub-conscious of all societies which defines what is right and wrong, what is moral and natural, what forms of behavior is appropriate in given circumstances. They derive from the myths and legends, from the deep national memories, from the environmental conditions, from the internal conflicts and from a multitude of other processes which take place over long periods of time in a society. These codes are so ingrained in a society that they become the driving force of the society. You can see them in the routines and habits of people, in their fears and pleasures, in their dreams and expectations and the systems of reasoning. These cultural codes have been given various names, cosmology, cosmo vision, the deep culture of a people.

What are the cultural codes of the Hawai`i society? Is this what is referred to as the "Aloha Spirit" or the "ohana life style"? Is this really the Hawai`i cultural code, or is it a romanticized, tourist trade generated fiction? Are there a multiplicity of codes in Hawai`i? What are our favored deep culture upon which we build Hawai`i tomorrow? Is there consensus on Hawai`i's deep culture?

Today, what we find is a jumbled flow of two distinct deep cultures within the Hawai`i society. The more recent American deep culture is prominent in the formal and the traditional Hawaiian, in the informal, systems of community life. The first contains strong elements of:

Domination - especially reflected in the formal economic, education, judicial and security systems. Ingrained within this element is the idea of expansion, an ever enlarging territory, market, or field of conquest as being a natural order of things.
Individualism - protected in the legal system, elevated in the expression of history and dominant Western philosophies. Ingrained within this element is the idea of singularity, a continual parceling apart, fragmenting of things, concepts, persons from people.
Exclusion - often accomplished by the depersonalization of the "other." One favorite technique is by referring to others as non-human entities, "gooks" and "commies" for example instead of men, women and children, the "market" instead of human consumers, the "evil empire" instead of the people of the other nation.

The acronym DIE (Domination, Individualism, and Exclusion) is an easy reminder of the elements of that deep culture stream. It is prevalent in the formal economic, education, judicial, security and political systems of the Hawai`i society today.

The second stream contains elements of:
`Olu`olu - compatible, agreeable, creating relationships of comfort, of inter-relating with a high degree of respect and trust, even alongside one's competitor, of finding contentment with what one has, of staying within one's kuleana, territory or property;
Lokahi - collective effort, many working together for a common goal which gives a foundation for looking at the wide implications of small things,
Aloha - a propensity toward inclusion of other people and different philosophies, a searching out for the humanity within others and trying to urge that humanity to the surface of inter-relationships.

This "OLA." is generally attributed to the underlying Hawaiian culture and the multiplicity of added cultures to Hawai`i. It is entrenched in the informal economy of sharing and caring, of non-formal education, of traditional healing, of alternate dispute resolution systems and community organizing. In the Hawaiian (and other Polynesian) language, it means both health and life.

Of course, one would have to look long and hard to find a pure DIE or OLA in the general community. These deep cultures continually mix, clash, and cooperate within individuals, families, situations, and systems. They add to the schizophrenia and to the compatibility of the society which makes Hawai`i so incomprehensible for some and so delightful to others. These deep cultures are more than interesting anthropological points of inquiry. They have very serious implications to our society. They form the foundation upon which we build our relationships with one another, how we interact with our environment, our attitudes to time, justice, sharing and caring, family, medicine, . . . They are guiding forces to our individual and collective futures.

Examining the general structure of a society, we see at the foundation, the deep culture(s). Upon that, we have an economic and/or an environmental, and/or a human rights tier. Economics, therefore, can become intertwined with environmental and human rights considerations, but it is itself, also affected by the deep culture of the society. In turn, politics, the third tier, is heavily influenced by economic, environmental and human rights systems. National Security develops to protect the political entity which sits upon the earlier tier. Each tier being touched and touching the other. But the driving force is the deep-culture.

Here's a simplified example of the practice of DIE and OLA deep cultures. Two young men come into a large source of cash and decide to buy a car for each of them. One goes out and buys a two seat, two door, convertible sports car to "go cruising" with a friend on date nights. The other buys a van so he can take the whole family around the island, to the "games" or just to "go holo holo" (visiting without a specific destination). Those choices are expressions of deep culture.

Consider the implications. Hawai`i's environmental policy can be used as a study. If those who make decisions over such a policy follow a DIE cultural concept, the environment will be treated from a "domination, fragmentation" approach - man has the right, (some argue, even the responsibility) - to conquer, dominate, and subdue the environment. The value of the forests are to be measured only in terms of its utility to the human population. Likewise, the ocean, the streams, the sky, the plants and animals, the winds, etc. Alterations to the natural elements are accomplished without any second thought: the first and only one being the "advantage" of man above all else.

An OLA concept would approach the environment from a kinship and a unification approach. The `_ina and the kai, the land and the ocean, would be treated as ohana, family. The cutting down of plants or the fishing in the ocean may or may not incorporate ceremony, but in the doing, there is certainly a sense of reverence, of operating within and of performing a special, sacred task. The operator of a machine uses it and applies it to the environment by creating within him/her self a relationship. He feels the mood and the spirit of the tractor, he can tell when he is pushing it too hard, or not enough. He feels the contours of the earth and the spirit within those contours. He may not be able to explain it, but those feelings are there deep inside.

"Progress", the unfolding of events to achieve or maintain one's sense of "Pono" - balance, righteousness, good order- for one who comes from DIE is far different from one from OLA. How one defines economics, for example, reflects one's definition of progress. Some define it by measuring the Gross National Product, the Gross Domestic Product, rates of savings, capital accumulation, construction starts, tax revenues, and the latest tourist numbers. Others define it instead by the social investments in education, health and welfare, if the people are healthy and have a good feeling about themselves, the degree to which poetry, dance and art flourish, the time available for people to family, etc. Yet, when followers of opposite concepts clash publicly, when protesters picket the cutting down of forests, wanting to save the owls rather than build a freeway, they are deemed "anti-progress" by DIE institutions. The case, of course, is simply that progress is defined by different values.

4. CONCLUSION

Change we must! But change not for the sake of change, to simply be swept along with the flow of modern currents. Change with a clearly defined vision based upon our hopes and dreams of a better, more equitable, loving and beautiful Hawai`i, inside and out.

The analysis of change begins with the deep culture. The deep culture sets the very foundation of a society. Once they are established, the development of the other aspects of the society become clearer.