The Colonial Power Wanted to Be Culturally Sensitive – They ended up creating more inequality

In the middle of the vast Pacific Ocean lie the Marshall Islands – a nation of coral atolls scattered across a huge ocean area. Here, people have traditionally lived through subsistence, fishing, agriculture, and local resource sharing.

When Berta first travelled to the Marshall Islands as a social anthropologist, he was open to letting his fieldwork shape the direction of the research.

“As an anthropologist and ethnographer doing long-term fieldwork, you are working all the time. Suddenly something happens – small pieces of information can turn out to be the start of something much bigger. You are on a constant journey of discovery,” he says.

He has researched the Marshall Islands for over ten years and lived there for a total of 17 months. Over time, he became particularly interested in how systems of power and land distribution had developed in the country. Through interviews, archival research, and analysis of earlier studies, he has gained an in-depth understanding of how society has changed.

“Power no longer lies with the people”

The Marshall Islands has traditionally had an informal status hierarchy.

“The distinction between different status groups was simply between people who inherited rank or titles from chiefly lineages, and everyone else. Although these boundaries were never very rigid, there were also hierarchies within families, where experienced and knowledgeable individuals were recognised as family heads with authority in matters of land. These status hierarchies were, among other things, about distributing resources,” he explains.

Chiefs once acted as a kind of welfare system, helping families struck by illness, accidents, or natural disasters. But with colonial power, money, and later a formal legal system, these practices changed.

“I have reviewed all earlier anthropological work from the colonial period onwards. Anthropologists working under U.S. administration were supported by it and documented how society functioned – something that in turn influenced the development of the legal system. All this material shows how land rights and the economy have gradually become privatised and individualised,” he says, and adds:

“In this process, the category of landowner and the concept of private property were created – concepts that did not exist before. When custom is written into a legal system, it must become fixed and concrete. That can easily create a system that appears traditional on the surface – but functions very differently in practice.”

From gift economy to capitalism

In today’s Marshall Islands, chiefs and family heads hold formal and economic power that goes far beyond traditional authority.
“Power no longer lies with the people. In the past, ordinary people could make demands on chiefs, and if they went too far, they would lose legitimacy. That is no longer the case,” says Berta.

Those with formal high status now own much of the land. Residents do not pay rent, but they must pay for electricity and infrastructure.

“The state operates according to capitalist principles, but the population is largely a-capitalist. They are not driven by the idea of accumulating wealth. Those who control land and positions, however, gain increasing advantages – free electricity, board positions, and income from rent and fees. This creates new inequalities that did not exist before,” he says.

Previously, gifts and tributes were used to maintain social bonds. Now, they have become a form of payment.
“Chiefs can demand money or goods – and keep them for themselves. The balance of power has been reversed,” says Berta.

Challenging the idea of being “useful”

Berta argues that social anthropology has sometimes ended up reinforcing the very inequalities it set out to challenge.

“Through the way anthropologists have described land, chieftainship, and tradition, they have unintentionally helped legitimise a system that today benefits only a few,” he says.

He wants to question some established ideas within his own discipline.

“There’s an idea within social anthropology that we should be useful. But what does that really mean? For some, it means that anthropologists should act as development agents – working for social improvement, development projects, or speaking on behalf of the marginalised. That makes us a kind of political spokesperson. Many believe we have a moral obligation in that role,” he says.

Berta does not see it as his task to tell people what they should do, but rather to provide knowledge.

“Knowledge can also be useful for local activists, but I can’t control how it’s used,” he says.

A story of power, culture, and change

Berta’s research sheds new light on the history and culture of the Marshall Islands – but it also illustrates what can happen when Western legal and economic models meet local ways of living and sharing.

“When you try to fit culture and custom into a legal framework, you risk losing some of what binds people together. The story of the Marshall Islands shows how easily good intentions can lead to injustice when Western ideals of property are taken for granted,” he says.

Reference

Ola Gunhildrud Berta: The legal life of anthropological theory: Limits to the ideal of being useful.
Critique of Anthropology, 2025.