We were sitting around with a few longtime friends a week or so ago, and of course at some point the topic of conversation turned to Mauna Kea and the TMT.
I shared my concerns about the anti-TMT community focusing on their belief that the mountain is “sacred.”
I’ve written before about the problems our diverse society faces in trying to come to terms with these often competing beliefs of what is (or is not) truly sacred and, as a consequence, to be defended and protected at all costs (Ian Lind: Dangerous Intersection of Social Policy and ‘Sacred’).
Our accepted procedures for adjudicating disputes over what should be considered “sacred” when making public policy decisions obviously haven’t worked in the case of the TMT.
Despite two separate contested case hearings where a wide range of evidence was presented and evaluated, both hearing officers concluded the evidence failed to support claims that the entirety of Mauna Kea is sacred.
But those conclusions haven’t been accepted as legitimate by a significant part of the community. Obviously, the self-described protectors of the mountain and their supporters do not accept the hearing officers’ conclusions or the court decisions that followed and, apparently, now retroactively reject the whole of the legal process.
We mulled over the issues while consuming a few glasses of wine.
How should we deal with claims that a particular public policy shouldn’t be pursued because it will impact something considered sacred by a part of the community?
The next day, one of our friends who was part of the discussion emailed this comment:
I guess I come down on the side of it’s-never-OK-to-use-the-sacred for political reasons. After all, more people have probably been killed in the name of religion than anything else. The problem with using “sacred” is that it is metaphysical and therefore not provable one way or the other. You can only go down a slippery slope.
Another added:
Although the following perhaps is obvious to you, I hadn’t previously given serious thought to the spirituality claim–that is, not the legitimacy or “truth” of it, so much as the fairly common use seemingly everywhere of claimed spirituality to advance political or social agendas. Even putting aside such scams as are routinely perpetrated by Jerry Falwell types, the examples are legion. One is the “sacred” Israeli site of Masada–which has no scholarly foundation in reality. Or, for Catholics, the propagandistic holy shrine at Lourdes where the waters are said to cure the blind, the crippled, etc. (Anatole France once remarked, upon seeing the discarded crutches piled up in grandiose display, “What…no wooden legs?”) Or, the quasi-religious and racist “cult of the lost cause” in the post-Confederate South. And, of course, there’s Kaho`olawe.
I guess my question is whether it is ever ethical (and if not, does it matter?) to use one form or another of asserted spirituality/sanctity to advance a political or environmental agenda when the issue deeply matters to you and the opposition holds all the other cards?
Clearly, deciding what is legitimately sacred is a simple proposition in a relatively homogenous community where there’s agreement on the underlying value proposition involved. But when that underlying agreement is absent, resolving disputes becomes a gnarly process.
One problem is that appeals to the sacred tend to both motivate and polarize. This interesting set of observations turned up in a Ph.D. dissertation on the democratic consequences of sacred rhetoric that I ran across online.
About the sacred we think differently and care more. The first of these aspects of sacredness leads to the reasoning effect, or a shift toward more absolutist thinking and justification. Our experiments demonstrate that exposure to sacred rhetoric leads directly to an increase in absolutist justifications, concentrating on non-negotiable and non-consequentialist arguments, the citation of appropriate boundaries and respected authorities, and expressions of moral outrage. The value in question becomes protected, inviolable, not to be tarnished by the cheap trading or power bargaining of mundane politics….
But sacred rhetoric also has a powerful outcome effect in the form of activation. Sacred appeals are more effective than non-sacred rhetoric in encouraging citizens to engage in politics.
The sacred shift increases citizens’ level of political intensity as well as their intention to participate. In our experiments, citizens displayed greater extremity of opinions, had higher perceptions of the importance of the issue, and lower perceptions of the legitimacy of opposing arguments. Moreover, they expressed greater intentions to attempt to convince others of their political perspective and to contribute to campaigns that promote their views. Activation is a major concern for both students and practitioners of contemporary politics, not because of its implications for democracy, but because of its influence on elections. Parties and movements that can increase the engagement of their supporters have a distinct advantage in winning office or influencing society. This is particularly important in a polarized environment where few minds are changing and the decisive question is which side has the more active constituency. For this reason, the psychological dynamics of sacred rhetoric have important partisan consequences as well as meaning for American democracy.
There are, of course, lots of examples of appeals to the sacred on divisive political issues, from abortion and women’s rights to immigration to gun rights and gun control.
Help all of us think beyond Mauna Kea to the broader issue of how to manage differences in beliefs about what is sacred.
I welcome your suggestions, including links to online sources that others can digest and comment on.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
M?ori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith said in Decolonizing Methodologies that westernized science “‘steals’ knowledge from others and then uses it to benefit the people who ‘stole’ it. Imua TMT (which expropriate the Hawaiian language for its name) is now calling their science sacred.
My favorite explanation of sacredness was written by Adam Camp in a column at Civil Beat: https://www.civilbeat.org/2015/04/the-protectors-of-mauna-kea-i-accuse/ “There is a proverb that states that “K? luna p?haku no ke ka’a i lalo, ‘a’ole hiki i k? lalo p?haku ke ka’a. (The highest rock (a great chief) may fall, but the land and its people remain). One does not have to believe in Poli’ahu or W?kea to understand and feel that Mauna Kea is sacred. It has a sense of place to many — historically and up until the present. One just needs to accept that it is a wahi pana in the same way that one does not need believe in Jehovah, G-d, Allah, Adonai to know that a church, mosque or synagogue are also wahi pana.”
Just because the TMT has a permit to build, doesn’t mean it should. Hawai’i’s history is full of examples where a small group of people united together to combat the entitled to save a wahi pana. In East Honolulu alone, small groups fought against allowing highrises to block the view of Leah
(Diamond Head), putting a marina in what is now Paiko Wildlife Sanctuary, hundreds of homes on Ka Lapa O Maua (Paiko Ridge) which would destroy the last remaining moku boundary wall on O’ahu, blocking of trail access and disturbance of cave burials in Wailupe (‘Aina Haina), sale of a state-owned fishpond in Niu (Kalauha’eha’e) and the sale of a private spring in
Kuli’ou’ou (Kanewai) to the highest bidder, placing a recreation center on a heiau (Hawea) and wetland (Keawawa) in Maunalua (Hawai’I Kai), a zipline on Kohelepelepe (Koko Crater), a Board of Water Supply baseyard in Koko Head District Park, vacation cabins on Ka Iwi Coast mauka and hotels and homes on Ka Iwi Coast makai. This list is by no means exhaustive, but I am proud to have played a small role in saving a few of them, and I am also proud to stand with the protectors. The passage of time has only confirmed that the efforts of a small group of people to save their wahi pana was not just correct, but beneficial for all the people of Hawai’i and I’m positive the same will be said of the Mauna.
“Westernized science steals knowledge and uses it for the benefit of those who stole it.”
There might not be any real examples of this.
Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry is an example of one-way exchange. Scientists learn about chemical compounds in plants and their healing properties by talking to indigenous people. When medicine is made from those plants, the indigenous people do not get any of the profits, and probably cannot afford the medicine, even when the patents expire. Although the benefits might be one-way, however, it does not constitute theft. And there is no theft in astronomy.
Spiritual beliefs constantly change and, in some cases, abruptly emerge.
Everyone can engage in whatever spiritual beliefs they like.
But they can’t force others to do the same.
And nobody can invoke spiritual belief as a trump card to subvert a legal authority, process, or decision they dislike, or to extort funds, concessions, or amenities.
Unfortunately, Mauna Kea has become a mountain of ego, posturing, offensive false equivalencies, and divisive and destructive group-think identity politics.
That’s the real desecration of Hawaii’s aloha spirit and the poisoning of its future.
Your mileage may vary.
Sacred is only part of protection actions in more places than Maunakea: Hong Kong’s protection of political freedoms; Dakota pipeline for environmental protections; Climate Strike for protecting an earth for next generations. Etc, etc, etc.
There’s so much sick-to-death of the self-serving, dishonest power structure. IMHO.
The reverse side of holding places sacred is our leaders who fight transparency and are deeply corrupt. The people see them emptying our tax money into paving over the cherished places of our islands. All to benefit connected contractors while the rest of us are stuck with the mess or have to leave home and move away.
If Hawaiians had been polled about spiritual beliefs ten years ago and asked to name the places they consider most sacred, how many individuals would have named Mauna Kea?
If the same TMT project had been initiated and controlled exclusively by Hawaiians, would the same reaction have occurred and would the same arguments have been made?
This situation has much more to do with politics, control, and disputes within UH than spirituality.
Actually, there is a long historical and legal record of Hawaiians in large numbers opposing various forms of major commercial development on Mauna Kea, with much of that opposition based on the spiritual argument that such activity constitutes desecration. This opposition includes resistance to development efforts by Hawaiians.
A good published summary and analysis of such resistance focuses on one widely known effort to protect Mauna Kea by the Pele Defense Fund, founded in the mid-1980s. See Davianna Pomaika`i McGregor and Noa Emmett Aluli, “Wao Kele O Puna and the Pele Defense Fund,” in Noelani Goodyear-Ka`opua, et al, eds., A Nation Rising: Hawaiian Movements for Life, Land, and Sovereignty, pp. 180-198. An interesting figure, cited in that article, who is still prominent in discussions of the Mauna Kea controversy today, is Big Island Mayor Harry Kim. According to the article, in courtroom testimony as administrator of the Hawai`i Civil Defense Agency in February 1991, Kim recounted “that in his years of working with the volcano in the Puna district he had observed that the chief deity acknowledged and honored by Hawaiians is Pelehonuamea. Families and individuals regularly requested permission to go beyond barricades to where the volcano was flowing to make offerings of lei, flowers, and gifts.”
The courts may or may not accept the religious/spiritual argument, and anyone is free disagree with it. But it is incorrect to suggest that many Hawaiians who invoke that argument are doing so cynically and merely for opportunistic or political purposes.
Your point is well taken, but this dispute is not limited to Hawaiians from Hawaii island who may have long-held spiritual beliefs regarding Mauna Kea. It now includes many others from that island, others islands, and even the mainland, and it seems very doubtful that all or even the vast majority held the same beliefs or in many cases had even seen Mauna Kea prior to this dispute. There is obviously an element of spirituality among some people involved here, but this dispute is not limited to them or their spirituality, and it would be equally incorrect to suggest that spirituality is the only matter at issue here and that politics, control, and disputes within UH cannot be overriding or at very least major contributing motivators. Nor are all development projects the same, or even similar. So past opposition that invoked spirituality as a basis to oppose one development proposed by Hawaiians or others does not necessarily support the notion that Hawaiians in general would have opposed this specific development if it had been proposed and controlled exclusively by Hawaiians, especially since this proposed development would be sited at a location at which there already exists significant similar development, some of which would be removed. Given the factual context, the opposition to TMT is irrational and unconvincing, as well as divisive and destructive, regardless of any genuine spiritual beliefs invoked as a basis for opposition.
Mauna Kea would not be sacred if OHA were getting more money from it. This is all about the master lease. UH has it. OHA wants it. The rest is rhetoric.
You are suggesting that the TMT protests are a conspiracy directed by OHA, thus attributing rationality, organization, competence and foresight to OHA. If only that were true. The protests are largely spontaneous and leaderless, and were unforeseen by everyone. OHA is trying to get in on the action in order to appear to be relevant. As if.
The word sacred is used by both Protectors and TMT supporters.
Protectors, it seems to me, are asserting “sacred” as both cultural and religious. It is framed by the the on-going renaissance of Hawaiian cultural values and the need to assert respect and reverence for them.
On the other hand, TMT supporters frame “sacred” as strictly religious in order to assert the superior authority of the secular legal system that favors building the TMT.
The word sacred of course is derived from the Latin word for blood and is closely related to sacrifice in both the religious an the secular sense.
I sure don’t understand why the newspaper keeps reporting that “supporters of TMT say the project has a legal right to proceed with construction” as if that were merely subjective opinion, when actually the state and the Supreme Court are very clear on this point.
It appears through the context of Ian’s posts that he is in support of TMT. I’m very surprised considering his past work supporting Native Hawaiian initiatives. He should refrain from spreading non Kapu Aloha ideologies in his site.
Ian’s website is useful for gauging public opinion. What he believes is in itself just someone’s personal belief, and he has freedom of expression. But Ian is representative of what voters believe. Voters tend to be more educated, more affluent and older. Poor people, young people and uneducated people tend not to vote. One problem with protesting is the risk of going too far and turning the typical voter against you.
Apparently, some Hawaiians have been claiming that Mauna Kea is sacred since the 1980s. Prior to that? Nothing. The 1980s were about the time when it became popular to claim that Hawaii is under military occupation.
Ian was one of the early visible protesters on Hawaiian issues, but he became more skeptical over time. When did this distancing begin for Ian? Round about the 1980s.