Dynamics of Difference in Australia. Francesca Merlan

colonizers and their mimicked versions, accompanied by desire on both sides: on that of the colonizer, for the colonized to become more like them; and on that of the colonized, for quite a range of things, sometimes amounting to Anglophilia, and for what we might call the ideal “real,” such as British justice, which they want to be realized as promised. Hegemony exists in the structure of colonial dependence that reinforces this gap, that is, power rules through a surrogate synthesis.

      For Taussig imitation is dialectical, an exchange. He accentuates the joint and continuing production of otherness rather than simply its prior existence as brute fact—the position he intends to counter. Bhabha as theorist of colonialism places strongest emphasis on the impossibility of totalizations, both at the levels of “original” and “copy,” as a function of power relations. Both Taussig’s opening of the space of production of otherness and Bhabha’s concept of power-laden partial resemblance are useful. Also useful are the impulses, briefly mentioned above, from cognitive psychology, which suggest to us the utility of closer attention to identifying the dimensions of imitation as psychosocial action.³

       Prevalence of Imitative Behavior

      We can consider early Australian encounters by attending to the framing that both parties applied and that affected how they understood the “empirical situation.” By “framing” I mean the ideas brought to interaction that strongly affect how it is understood. Here I examine two framings of mimesis: instruction and comic. Such ideas were provisional and experimental, and humor was one way for those interacting to try out framings.

      There were many circumstances in which diarists record indigenous people imitating some kind of action they had seen the Europeans perform, observing them, as it were, from a less directly engaged perspective; and in noting their intention, the Europeans sometimes assisted them to perform the action more effectively. This was not direct imitation by indigenous people of Europeans in interaction with themselves but based on observation by indigenous people of what Europeans did or sometimes what Europeans explicitly showed them. For instance, La Billardière (in Roth 1899:29) observed several forms of imitation and collaboration:

      A native, to whom we had just given a hatchet, displayed great dexterity at striking several times following in the same place, thus attempting to imitate one of our sailors who had cut down a tree. We showed him that he must strike in different places, so as to cut a notch, which he did immediately, and was transported with joy when he saw the tree was felled by his strokes. They were astonished at the quickness with which we sawed the trunk in two; and we made them a present of some hand-saws, which they used with great readiness, as soon as we had shown them the way. These savages were much surprised at seeing us kindle the spongy bark of the Eucalyptus resinifera in the focus of a burning-glass. He, who appeared the most intelligent among them, was desirous of trying the effects himself, threw the converging rays of the sun upon his thigh by its means; but the pain he felt took from him all inclination to repeat the experiment.

      In short order, means of using a metal hatchet, a handsaw, and a magnifying glass were imitated. This was imitative instruction of a purposeful kind. On another occasion, a person referred to as a “chief” had observed a woman using a comb that had been given to her. He wanted to use it also but could not get it through his tangled hair. He was assisted, with difficulty: “I … was soon obliged to hold his hair back with the one hand, and pull the comb with the other. From this he did not shrink, but encouraged me in my work, saying frequently, ‘Narra coopa—very good.’ And when the work was accomplished he looked at himself in a glass, with no small degree of pleasure. He was a man of an intelligent mind, who made rapid advances in civilization, and was very helpful in the preservation of good order in the Settlement” (in Roth 1899:44).

      In cases that contemporary diaries record, the imitated content seems generally to have been derived from the bodily actions of Europeans and frequently their words. Such mimesis is not mere action learning, it is also results oriented. To note mimesis as imitative instruction is to depart from Darwin’s framing of Fuegians’ skill as comparable “to the instinct of animals,” as “not improved by experience” and as static (“their most ingenious work … has remained the same, for the last 250 years” [1989:178]). What would Darwin have said if he had spent time closely engaged with people, trying to modify their tree-chopping technique with a new tool? Would he have conceded a greater comparability of them with himself in respect to the improvement of their technique by experience?

      Our consideration of humor can begin with West’s ([1852]1966:88) report on imitative ability as a general capacity of the natives of Tasmania: “They were fond of imitation and humour; they had their drolls and mountebanks; they were able to seize the peculiarities of individuals and exhibit them with considerable force.” The link that is made between imitation and humor is important, relatable to the extent to which good humor, drollery, and expressions of exuberance seem to have been a regular feature of some early encounters that remained of a relatively positive kind. (Many encounters did not remain so.) Playfulness did not escape Darwin’s notice. We learn from him that indigenous people appreciated capacities of Europeans to imitate: members of the Beagle’s crew in Tierra del Fuego were apparently not averse to engaging in antics and imitative behavior, we are told; although imitative of what and whether it was of the indigenes we do not learn. The Fuegians “were highly pleased by the antics of a man belonging to the boat’s crew, who danced well and was a good mimic” (in Keynes 1979:96).

      Antics appear to have been most notable when visitors played with children, when opportunity arose. Gaiety and forwardness of children are mentioned on a number of occasions by Baudin. After a short time, the children behaved “as if we had known them a long time,” as if the visitors were old acquaintances. The children seem to have accommodated to the difference that the outsiders originally represented and were carrying on as usual. At least for the children, French reassurance enabled a restoration of affect as usual. And the French were able to play and engage in antics with them in a way they would not easily have done with adults.

      Playfulness, antics—these seem to be exercises in bridge building. Darwin instinctively treated reproduced language in these encounters as something that is not first and foremost propositional but something uttered and taken up, a form of engagement. Similar forms of bridge building, the intent to produce shared feeling, can be seen in Darwin’s observation that Fuegians expressed: “satisfaction or good will by rubbing or patting their own, and then our bodies” (in Keynes 1979:96).

      Darwin implies that they are, in effect, suggesting an affective meaning content: satisfaction is shown by their rubbing their stomachs. They then do this to the outsiders, in the absence of the latter imitating the original gesture. The intent seems clear: to establish a mutuality of experience and feeling. Rubbing and patting (so Darwin suggests) were iconic of good feeling and satisfaction. (Presumably, all were smiling or seemed amiable in other ways during this exchange.) Darwin also notes the importance of reciprocity when he writes of having accompanied an old Fuegian man, who offered him evidence of friendly intent by “three hard slaps, which were given me on the breast and back at the same time”; and who then “bared his bosom for me to return the compliment, which being done, he seemed highly pleased” (Darwin 1896:205).

      Imitation could turn into parody. George Mortimer (in Roth 1899:41) gives the following account of an interview in order to make the point that French discoverers often found it difficult to open communication with the natives: “Our third mate on landing, saw several of them [natives] moving off. He approached them alone and unarmed, making every sign of friendship his fancy could suggest; but though they mimicked his actions exactly, and laughed heartily, he could not prevail upon them to stay.” Thus, imitation was not always a means of achieving greater contact with the other (by “becoming and behaving” like him). It could be a way of achieving some interaction but also bounding it off. Many diarists remarked on the great “shyness” of the natives, the difficulties of approaching them. Shyness is not what we see in the following anecdote, however. The French at Bruny Island encountered a group of women, one of whom stepped forward and made signs to the French to sit and lay down their guns, the sight of which frightened them, says Péron (2006:198). (And so it might have: Baudin [1974:323] reports having aimed at people and says he only had to shift his gun