EMQ » January–March 2022 » Volume 58 Issue 1
[memberonly folder=”Members, EMQ2YearFolder, EMQ1YearFolder, EMQLibraryInstitution”]By Joshua Mackenzie
Patron-client relationships are a key governing feature of relationships in cultures where considerations of honor and shame are paramount. Yet there has been little discussion about patronage relationships among First Nations People (FNP). This article evaluates Australian Indigenous Cultures (AIC) through the patron-client model and argues that patronage relationships govern the transmission of community knowledge within them. A historical understanding of AIC and the early interactions between intercontinental relationships and helps us see how this system was impacted by colonization, leading to the current situation in Australia. From this, I suggest some implications for ministry among FNP.
Patterns of Patron-Client Relationships
Patronage relationships have primarily been viewed as the way by which commodities of wealth and status are shared or manipulated to benefit the community or individual. The patron “provides job opportunities, investment capital, and ‘insurance’ against catastrophic financial failure by absorbing losses in the case of an emergency or calamity.” In return the clients “support the patron. Clients may pay rent to their patron for housing or land, or they may pay a percentage of their earnings to their patron. Clients may also provide domestic services such as cleaning, cooking, or hauling water and firewood.”[1] Yet, my experience in AIC and study of patronage has shown that while patronage relationships exist and operate in AIC, they are underpinned by a different commodity – knowledge.
Patron-Client within Traditional Australian Indigenous Cultures
Before Australia was colonized, patronage type relationships were visibly present within a unit of Indigenous culture (i.e., one tribal area). Knowledge was the key commodity, and the patron-client system was how knowledge passed through cultural lines.
In AIC knowledge is traditionally kept orally and in local language. Cultural knowledge is the nucleus of community; it defines how a person is expected to live in relation to others, the environment, and the ancestral and creation spirits. Hiebert explains totemic cultures live primarily in relationship to one another with a defined center.[2] The defined center of AIC is knowledge passed on from the ancestors, and a person with knowledge functions as a patron.
Unlike other patron-client models where the role of patron is more clearly defined by wealth or status, the role of patron in AIC is defined by ever-shifting layers of cultural knowledge shared among the community. Speaking about Indigenous peoples, the United Nations Economic and Social Council states: “Traditional knowledge tends to be collectively owned, whether taking the form of stories, songs, beliefs, customary laws and artwork or scientific, agricultural, technical and ecological knowledge and the skills to implement these technologies and knowledge.”[3] Practically this means in AIC no one person holds all the knowledge; within the cultural system a person may be client and patron to different pieces of cultural information. This prevents the culture dying with that person and distributes the wealth of knowledge among elders, so no one person is more important than another; thus, forming a protective barrier around the knowledge center.
The person wanting or needing knowledge falls into the client category. In AIC for a person to receive knowledge, they must be deemed culturally ready. Knowledge is only ever passed from a patron to a client at an appropriate time, marked by cultural significance or practical need. Examples of this include, but are not limited to: needing the information to survive (e.g., hunting, childbirth); having achieved the correct status or life stage (e.g., initiation); needing the information to safely pass through areas without damaging sacred sites and causing death in community; needing the information to care for the land; needing the information to perform and participate in ceremonies; and needing to preserve oral history – i.e., the knowledge keeper is dying or the last one with the knowledge.
The cultural significance of this is that once someone receives knowledge they become a patron of that knowledge, while still posturing as a client to the person who passed on the knowledge. A patron holding knowledge would dishonor his family and culture by failing to share it with his their clients at the appropriate time; by sharing it too early; or by sharing it with the wrong people (e.g., outsiders or people not meant to receive that information). A client honors and respects their patron, and thus their culture, by living and acting appropriately with any cultural knowledge received from a patron. A client dishonors a patron, and the whole community, by gaining or seeking knowledge too early; by seeking knowledge from another culture that is contradictory to their own culture; and by deliberately choosing to act out and against their cultural knowledge.
This pattern of patron-client knowledge relationship is ultimately a reflection of the relationship the clan has with their ancestors or ancestral spirit. It is a common belief among AIC that their lands were created by an ancestor or spiritual being which has significance to that area. These creators gave knowledge about life and how to live in the land to their first tribal members, who were responsible for passing it on to the next generation.
Upon death, spirits inhabit the land of their ancestors becoming part of that dreaming story. This rite of cultural passage to the ancestors is achieved through ceremonies performed by those in the community who have the correct cultural knowledge. An older person in community must give knowledge before their passing so rites of passage can be performed in honor of their patronage. When functioning correctly, this patron-client model creates a seamless pathway through life, from birth to death to the place of the ancestral spirits.
Patronage Relationships with Outsiders Pre-Settlement
This idea of a patron-client community built upon cultural knowledge as the primary commodity seemed to be mutually respected in the interactions between different Indigenous groups on the Australian continent, and between Indigenous groups and non-Indigenous outsiders.
Across Different Indigenous Groups
In 1788 when British settlers arrived, there were approximately five hundred distinct people groups with over two hundred and fifty languages.[4] Relationships between these cross-tribal groups reflected the knowledge-based, patron-client model which existed in each independent Indigenous culture.
This could be seen primarily in the crossing of land from one culture to another. Cultural markings created by ancestral spirits were believed to mark boundary lines between cultural groups. To enter in or pass through another tribe’s cultural area, knowledge needed to be given to maintain safety from the disturbance of cultural sites.[5] If entering without permission, one could cause death to themselves or someone within the tribal structures of the land they were entering.[6] People would not enter country or cross boundary lines unless invited or welcomed in. They understood that entering land meant to enter as a client of that country; their place in culture, their journey of cultural knowledge, was only beginning.
Interactions External to the Australian Continent
Prior to settlement there is evidence of interactions between different AIC and those from other cultures, including China, Tanzania, Portugal, and Indonesia.[7] The most notable of these interactions was between the Yolngu of Arnhem Land and the sea-trading Makassans of Sulawesi, Indonesia. The Makassans collected sea cucumbers from the Arnhem Coast, from which they supplied one-third of China’s demand.[8]
Showing they understood the premise of a patron-client relationship, the Makassans would come to Arnhem Land and sit on the beach until a trade agreement was made and they were invited to receive from the land; they never entered into Indigenous land without permission.[9] Mimicking the tribal relationships on mainland Australia, the Makassans respected the sovereignty of the Yolngu, entering as clients.
Patronage Relationships in Early Settlement
In contrast, the British entered the land as patrons, expecting Indigenous Australians to respect their sovereignty claims. A new, British, knowledge was introduced and competed with the ancestral knowledge held orally by each cultural group.
Figure 8.3 – The Inversion of Patronage at Colonisation
The outcome of the competition between British and Indigenous knowledge depended on the colonization story of the individual cultural group. Some pursued or embraced Christianity in order to capture the power the colonizer’s had. Others adapted to white life to avoid annihilation. Some tribes traded the lives of other people groups to protect their own, while others engaged in brutal wars to retain their knowledge and sovereignty. Whatever the outcome, European settlement had a profound impact on the traditional patron-client based knowledge system.
Ultimately this conflict of competing knowledges led to a different kind of patron-client relationship in Australia. While remnants of their knowledge based, patron-client systems still exist, Indigenous Australians have largely become clients who are dependent on the resources and knowledge of non-Indigenous Australian patrons.
The Current State: Patronage Relationships in Modern Australia
An analysis of current relational dynamics within Australia is complicated. The extent that a patron-client knowledge relationship still exists in local Indigenous groups in Australia is determined by the volume of cultural knowledge that has been eroded. AIC are caught in the process of a rapidly changing worldview, which they recognize and are trying to address. They are actively trying to preserve cultural knowledge through various means, including arts centers, museums, and education programs. There are also many cultural restoration projects happening in Australia, often with a traditional language focus.
Central to this movement of protecting Indigenous knowledge is a longing for AIC to have their positions as patrons restored. In 2017 Indigenous representatives from different cultural groups all around Australia met, created, and presented to the Federal Government the “Uluru Statement from the Heart.” It requests that a direct line of advocacy between Indigenous people and the Government, on policies written for Indigenous people, be enshrined in the Constitution. The knowledge center of AIC is the basis of the claim, “We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.”[10] At the heart of this Statement is a longing to restore Indigenous culture to a place of power and prestige in Australia; a longing to return their people from clients acted upon by bureaucratic systems, to patrons of their own future.
Figure 8.3 – The Inversion of Patronage at Colonisation
Implications for Gospel Ministry
My initial solution as someone about to work alongside a remote Indigenous church was simply to enter in as a client. However, I soon discovered this idea was void of reality. As a person coming from a place of white privilege, this romantic idea is not fully achievable. One cannot merely denounce white privilege and pretend that in every aspect of life a white person would be able to sit as a client to Indigenous Australians. In fact, that would be a misunderstanding of the patron-client system I have identified.
Implication 1
When receiving information from an Indigenous person, posture as a client.
Anyone in the ecosystem of knowledge that is an Indigenous culture must recognize that when they are given knowledge, they become a patron of that knowledge. When working on the Tiwi Islands, my wife and I were given places in culture; we were expected to act in specific ways and to respect aspects of Tiwi Lore. We were expected to attend funerals and dance with the Tiwi when we were welcoming people into our Tiwi spaces. We are still called when significant people or significant events happen in community. Thus, while we sat primarily in the patron position because of our occupation and status as schoolteachers, when it came to cultural knowledge we sat as clients receiving information, who when the time was right were required to be patrons of that knowledge. For example, when running our induction into the school and the community, our principal acted as a patron for the Tiwi community. When I explained something cultural to a visiting teacher, I acted as a patron.
Implication 2
When in a position as patron enact servant leadership.
Non-Indigenous people who work in Indigenous communities are inevitably there because they have knowledge they are imparting. Christians working in AIC in the realm of full-time gospel ministry are no different – my role as I return to an AIC in the north of Australia will be to nurture and train church leaders. As Christians, however, we should avoid the mistakes of European patrons who have acted upon Indigenous people as if they were passive clients, and instead hold at the very core of our actions the collaborative approach of servant leadership. As servant leaders we recognize that patronage relationships are by nature reciprocal, and that we need to be ready to receive as well as give.
Implication 3
We must try to avoid situations where seeking power is the motivation for Indigenous people’s involvement in Christian ministry.
Australian Indigenous people initially embraced church life in the hope of mastering the power of the white man’s God; with the ultimate aim of restoring the power imbalance and taking back their lands.[11] Servant leadership, along with appropriate contextualization of the gospel, will help to reduce the likelihood of people seeking Christianity as a means of gaining power through knowledge.
Implication 4
The biblical model of patron-client relationships is a contextually appropriate point of contact for gospel witness to FNP.
God in his wisdom created the world and then gave humanity responsibility and knowledge which governed the way they should live in harmony with the world. However, humanity forsook this knowledge and choose their own path, leading to a world which is broken and in need of repair. God throughout history has continued to give his knowledge to humankind, and yet they do not honor this knowledge as clients should. Instead of leaving his culture in the hands of dishonoring clients, God sent his own Son to become the client humans could not. As the loyal client Jesus shares his knowledge so that all who show themselves to be loyal clients to him are accepted by God and can move at death to be with him forever.
If we were to complete a biblical theology with this framework we could show the story of the gospel as knowledge which has been passed through a patron-client lens. Deuteronomy 6:4–9 comes to mind as one of many verses which illustrate this, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.”
Conclusion
Despite development on patron-client relationships in the missiological world, there has been little discussion about how this might apply to FNP and their honor-shame worldview. AIC have traditionally operated within the model of patron-client relationships, with knowledge as the key commodity. At settlement, this model was disrupted, and Indigenous people became clients in their own lands. They now long for a reversal back to a position as patrons. Practitioners in contexts such as AIC need to be aware that when cultural knowledge is being given, they should posture as clients. However, when we sit in the position of knowledge we should be sure to practice servant leadership. This has the potential to create a powerful gospel witness that separates the practitioner from past mistakes associated with colonization.
Since new knowledge brought with colonization was thought of in terms of patronage and gaining power, we need to ensure that when presenting the knowledge of Christ, it is not being sought as a way of yielding to a similar colonial conquering power. Instead, we want to present the power that knowledge brings in Luke 24 where Jesus is revealed as the one promised in the Old Testament – the Messiah who will redeem for God, a people from every nation, tribe, people and language (Revelation 7:9). Therefore, when considering presenting the gospel to FNP, patronage might be the extension of the honor-shame world view people have been searching for.
The deep connection of knowledge passed down through generations is clearly evident in the Bible and something worth exploring in greater depth as we consider the implications of knowledge as a commodity shared through patronage relationships. This article has barely scratched the surface of this topic. It is my hope that many people will benefit from starting a discussion in this area.
Joshua Mackenzie is a trained teacher about to begin ministry with CMS Australia. His role will be discipling and training Indigenous Christians in Northern Australia.
EMQ, Volume 58, Issue 1. Copyright © 2022 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: EMQ@MissioNexus.org.
[1] James Tino, “A Lesson from Jose: Understanding the Patron/Client Relationship,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 44, no. 3 (July 2008): 322, https://missionexus.org/a-lesson-from-jose-understanding-the-patron-client-relationship/.
[2] P.G. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 131.
[3] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Eighteenth Session, “Traditional Knowledge: generation, transmission and protection,” New York, 22 April – 3 May 2019: 2, https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/E/C.19/2019/5.
[4] Jane Simpson, “The State of Australia’s Indigenous Languages – And How We Can Help People Speak Them More Often,” The Conversation, January 21, 2019, https://theconversation.com/the-state-of-australias-indigenous-languages-and-how-we-can-help-people-speak-them-more-often-109662.
[5] J.K. Doolan, “Aboriginal Concept of Boundary: How Do Aboriginals Conceive ‘Easements’ – How Do They Grant Them?” Oceania 49, no. 3 (March 1979):163, 165.
[6] Doolan, “Aboriginal Concept,” 163, 165.
[7] Lucy Marks, “Did Aboriginal and Asian People Trade Before European Settlement in Darwin?” ABC News, 15 May 2018, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-16/aboriginal-people-asians-trade-before-european-settlement-darwin/9320452.
[8] “Trade with the Makasar,” National Museum of Australia, 22 May 2020, https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/trade-with-the-makasar.
[9] Richard Trudgen, Djambatj Mala: Why Warriors Lie Down and Die: Towards an understanding of why the Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land face the greatest crisis in health and education since European contact (Darwin, NT: Aboriginal Resource and Development Services, 2000), 27.
[10] Emphasis added. “The Uluru Statement from the Heart,” The Uluru Statement, 2017 National Constitutional Convention, https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement.
[11] Trudgen, Djambatj Mala, 30.
