as unilateral in form. However, this is not the whole story, as both the
Hagen case and the Duna case show in their different ways. In Hagen
descent reasserts itself in the segmentary constitution of political groups.
Among the Duna each local group orrindihas an internal‘backbone’
through the precedence granted to a single senior agnatic line within the
rindi. This line is connected to the putative founder of the group, often
described as a powerful outsider with extraordinary abilities who came to
the land and brought his strength and creativity to it. So, for the Duna, a
dogma of (agnatic) descent reasserts itself from within the milieu of
cognatic relations. And for Hagen a similar dogma of agnatic descent is
imprinted on a variable set of bilateral ties of recruitment. Agnation and
cognation are pivoted together–as indeed they were among the Nuer
studied long ago by Evans-Pritchard. Instead of there being an‘African
mirage’that had to be dispelled in order to understand the New Guinea
Highlands wefind instead that an aspect of social reality stretches across
the world, notably between Hagen and the Nuer. A frame has been
broken only to be remade when we look at the underlying processes at
work.
Now, what has all this got to do with individuals? We return now to the
topic of this chapter as a demonstration of how innovations turn into
overworked models and mindful anthropology is thereby lost. First, if
there is one point that consistently emerges from the New Guinea
Highlands ethnography, it is that choices made by individuals enter sig-
nificantly into social patterns. Variations in group composition (in contrast
to relative stability in group ideology) are all products of choice. Exchange
networks, while guided by kinship and affinity, are also products of choice.
Choices that leaders make, and their strategies of self-development, are
equally a product of their choices and creative ability. People choose where
to reside. The choices of women about whom to marry enter in. Among a
set of brothers one may distinguish himself as a leader beyond the others.
In Hagen all such variations are recognized and expounded via the con-
cept of thenoman, the‘mind’of the speaker. Persons are therefore seen as
mindful, conscious agents in the sense put forward by Anthony Cohen in
his general discussion. Bringing together persons of differentnomaninto a
state of agreement is recognized as an art of leadership and a product of
discussion. Again, this is like Cohen’s viewpoint, that the creation of
consensus is difficult; and to Cohen’s observations (influenced perhaps
by his experiences in academic administration) we can add now the
element of leadership added to that of personal choice. Suddenly we are
4 INDIVIDUALS 41