But I’m stubborn or pig-headed, as is more appropriate for a scientist mostly concerned with swine. It has also been my misfortune to be a poet frequently disturbed by swine-like behaviour.

The whole pickle has given me much gristle for rumination and I’m about ready for a spit-roast.

So, here goes another swing at trying to save some hope for humanity.

I recently surmised that there are at least five elements which may affect socioeconomic progress in Papua New Guinea.

This is by no means the formulation of a solution and the construction of these elements is simply my way of forming a frame of reference when looking at different complex scenarios that I come across.

It may not necessarily make complete sense to anyone else at first glance so, bear with me.

The elements are:

• Competition – for my good
• Cooperation – for our good
• Community – for what good
• Communication – how it’s good
• Culture – what is good?

Accordingly, I suggest that in order to find solutions for socioeconomic improvement it is very important to define precisely what is good for a society within its cultural context.

The rest of the C-words are self-determining.

It is also apparent, at least to me, that starting from the top down, or leading with any of the other four C-words as a primary driver for conceptualising the path forward, does not work out the way anyone expects it to, i.e., the outcome of any movement toward socioeconomic betterment of a country is indeterminate if there is no cultural grounding.

In my opinion, the lack of cultural grounding for adopted laws from the Westminster system - or the perceived Western traditions of democracy, capitalism and free trade, or an inability to adapt their precepts to applicable or equivalent cultural facets in our society, such as consensus, bigmanship and traditional trade relations (e.g., Hiri Moale and Kula Trade) - places us at odds with the application of those laws and traditions, which we then consider as being “foreign” to us.

(But how “foreign” are they?)

It’s somewhat hypocritical when we choose to accept the Western tradition of Christianity, which serves as a basis for much of the above Western social, political and economical traditions and laws.

These discussions are continued the world over in much heated debate, often without a hint of duplicity, for example, in the political warfare waged against capitalism and in favour of communism, or essentially Marxism (or Marxist ideals), which are both derived from the works of Western intellectuals.

My ramblings here will probably do very little to assuage these deep rooted philosophical and ideological arguments.

However, my concern is in how we may use our cultural foundations to glean what is good for us from the accumulated (and packaged) bundle of ideas that we are offered as a means to improve our lot in life. And that’s not simple either.

This is my take on how we might survey the pathway forward for dealing with our challenges and foster culturally grounded socio-economic progress.

So, back to my framework for how I may initially conceptualise a problem-solving matrix before getting down to the nuts and bolts necessary to get the job done.

When beginning with communication as the primary driver, what usually results is spin, promises and lies, in the art of bullshido usually promulgated by “poets, priests and politicians”.

We may often be offered some grand vision of the future without the practical means to achieving it, i.e., how good things are going to be but not what we have to give up in getting there. (This is otherwise known as government strategic planning.)

When beginning with community as the primary driver, what usually results is vying for power and authority, resulting in confusion, disgruntlement and disharmony, since everyone in leadership may readily claim to be acting for the benefit of the group while doing the exact opposite, and thereby creating divisive and hierarchical factions.

In a broad generalisation for Papua New Guinea, it may be said that Highlands cultures appreciate competition as a central tenet, from the individual and their related household, to the clan and the tribal level, with the outcomes emerging through that focus.

Whereas, coastal and islands cultures have an approach that begins with cooperation at the broader community level, with the tribal and clan sub-level absorbing the household and individual needs.

In the more specific context of modern mixed communities, with their ad hoc cultural affiliations, the resulting community life and any progress towards betterment is next to impossible because of the lack of a cohesive cultural definition of what precisely is good in the first place.

How do we engage community, negotiate cooperation, navigate competition and successfully communicate without agreed mutually beneficial objectives?

It’s more likely the case that, without consciously crafting culture to guide the progress towards what is good, societies run the risk of allowing ad hoc communication, competition, cooperation, and community to become overpowering concerns, which do not provide them with solid grounding in reality.

The latter are socioeconomic concepts whereas culture is a practice.

It’s sad to say that the Highlands’ focus of attaining success in life, as a proxy to what is good, through competition as the central tenet has resulted in more bad than good outcomes.

For example, chopping someone who has wronged you was more popular in the Highlands where conflict was the norm, than on the coast or islands, prior to circa 1950’s, when the Highlanders came down from the mountains, or at least when their cultural invasion commenced.

(I say “their cultural invasion” even though I am of Highlands descent because, by my general outlook and more importantly my attitude and behaviour, I am more culturally a Coastal person in outlook, having been born and raised in NCD, Central Province.)

As a result of the Highlands cultural invasion, or their aggressive influence if you prefer, it may be suggested that community actions such as torture, burning and murder of women accused of sorcery is now common practice whereas this was unheard of in cultures which traditionally had recognised witches or sorcerers as relevant and even respected members of society, albeit fearfully.

What’s more, although the strong entrepreneurial spirit of highlands market vendors is a praiseworthy outcome of their competitive nature, it has also resulted in coastal vendors being bulldozed aside in their own communities, disadvantaged and defeated by the mercenary tactics used by their opponents.

Coastal people are more inclined towards sharing market places and agreeing to taking turns in their marketing ventures.

Many communities are still reeling from the impacts of such Highlands’ modus operandi where, for example, one man insults another man who then kills him, but the household defends the killer and then the clans intercede for their household and so, to the two tribes, this means war.

Alternatively, for a Coastal man who insults another man, he would be in danger of upsetting natural spirits who may decide to wreak havoc on him and anyone in his direct household who does not try to redress the issue. This does not mean war.

It may be suggested that the culture of chopping people, a kind of competition maybe, was not as popular on the Coast although it was not unknown, and that usually some form of cooperation to assail the wrongdoer would have been pursued.

In the instance of being wronged by another, a Coastal or Island person may resort to witchcraft or redress their situation by engaging in social shaming or deriding of the culprit via complex networks involving the tribal and subordinate clan affiliations, which may, by implication, affect the entire household of the particular individual, so still not good for everyone in the family.

Often the call would be put out to ancestral spirits to intercede in the matter as well.

The different attitudes resulting from these two opposing perspectives towards a wrongful action by one person towards another may be summarised as follows.

Primarily, for the Highlander the position is that, “I did you wrong AND there isn’t any shame in it, BUT THERE WILL BE DEATH FOR YOU personally and collectively if YOU want to redress it, here take this pig instead”. Note the capitalising of the imperative nature of their speech/thought/meaning.

Whereas, to the Coastal/Islander the position is that, “I did you wrong AND there is shame in it, AND THERE MAY BE DEATH FOR ME personally and collectively if WE do not redress it, here take this pig instead”.

The language is personally self-effacing and negotiating.

Now, I’m not about to hand down a judgment on which attitude is better, but I will say that at first glance only one of these perspectives appears to provide a more conducive approach to resolving disputes amicably and with minimum loss of life.

It’s why we say ol nambis em ol pisful manmeri.

At the very core, I believe the principles are pride without fear versus humility with fear. In either cultural setting these may be considered the pathway to achieving what is good.

These two principles have had countless collisions in practice and I suggest that a psychological evaluation of society is required for the necessary task of nation building, so that there is pride with fear and humility without fear, because there is probably better balance in the outcome.

In other words, it would be a better pathway to achieving what is good.

(But don’t take my word for it, go read your Holy Bible, because if the attitude of Christ is what Papua New Guinean society truly wants to aspire towards, then so be it.)

I think that the opposing principles of either pride or humility as being the culturally approved pathway for society, leads to the need for enforcing the outcomes.

The authority of such cultural approved laws elevating either pride or humility is promulgated by fear; to me, the enforcers are loyalty and cruelty.

Pride is enforced by the loyal. Humility is enforced by the cruel. Both are an attitude towards either thwarting or supporting the real enemy, fear.

Fear of the loss of pride leads to the loyalty necessary to defend it. Fear of humiliation (imposed humility) stems from the cruelty necessary to exact it. Neither of these is good.

However, pride balanced by humility results in what is good since it is has the dual nature capable of opposing cruelty and controlling fear, elevated by their use as principles of action.

When combining these core principles with the above suggested socioeconomic determining elements, three outcomes are apparent to me.

A culture which maintains competition as the primary driver, with pride as a ruling principle, pays by the enforcement of loyalty. Examples of these are Laiagam, Enga Province or Tari, Southern Highlands Province where, internecine tribal warfare often rules.

A culture which maintains cooperation as the primary driver, with humility as a ruling principle, pays by the enforcement of cruelty.

Examples of these are Markham Morobe Province or Kerema Gulf Province, where, insidious inexplicable consequences often rules.

It is interesting to note that, in these tribalistic societies where the rights of the individual are held as supreme, when things go wrong the entire group suffers. Whereas, where the rights of the group hare held as paramount, when things go wrong the each individual suffers.

(This seems to have some parallel with modern civilized societies, methinks.)

While these statements and the examples may be broad generalisations, suffice it to say, a society in which either of these enforcers, loyalty and cruelty, is allowed power may not find what is good.

More importantly, I think we’ve seen enough of the practical outcomes to know that these outcome statements are generally true.

On the other hand, a stable culture which maintains community as a primary driver may be rewarded by the interests of both competition and cooperation, because it requires negotiation, i.e., good communication, for a beneficial outcome, a balancing out of pride and humility by all parties involved (or the middle path as suggested by Lord Buddha).

In my opinion, if we attend to culture first, then the rest shall follow, agreeable competition, engaging cooperation, suitable communication and a secured community.

Following that order of operation, I believe that it is inevitable for such a society to thrive.

Curbing the excesses of loyalty and acts of cruelty would surely benefit an optimistic society.

Wednesday, 14 May 2025, 10:32 am, Gannet Street, Lae