3. MARCO TEÓRICO
3.2 Análisis de antecedentes investigativos
What is often ignored in discussions of the two world-view model of New Zealand society is the emergence of a particularly dominant position from inside the Måori population namely, Måori cultural nationalism. Måori and non-Måori have advanced the endorsement of the Måori cultural nationalist position during the bicultural reforms.61 The privileging of the Måori cultural nationalist view, in relation to Måori society, is not a simple exercise of inverting the good/bad or brown/white dichotomies, and presenting an argument that non- Måori have been subverted by Måori. Rather the aim is to examine the rise and influence of Måori cultural nationalist propositions on contemporary understandings of Måori
subjectivity. Within the auspices of biculturalism Måori cultural national propositions are both shared and resisted across ethnic and cultural lines. Significantly, Måori cultural nationalism was given its greatest impetus when it was adopted as the legitimate and authentic “Måori” position in the bicultural-two world-view model by the State.
6.1.1 Måori cultural nationalist origins
This section examines the origins and common assumptions about the Måori population contained with the Måori cultural nationalist framework. The origins of Måori cultural nationalism were outlined in a seminal work Poata-Smith (1996; 2001). Nash (1983), Webster (1998) and Walker (2001) argue that the origins of Måori cultural nationalism are based upon the broader pan-national Måori movements of the 19th and early 20th Century. Arguably, the two most enduring movements of the 19th Century were Kotahitanga and the
80
Kingitanga which would have significant roles to play throughout New Zealand history, events of which are referenced in Rewi’s Last Stand (1925/194) and Utu (1983). As Nash and Wesbter argue, these broader pan-national movements can be seen as direct responses by Måori groups to the structures of the Crown, and encroachment upon land through policy and legislation (see also Cox 1993a). Ranginui Walker (1990; 2001; 2004) suggested that these broader movements and key figures, such as Tå Åpirana Ngata in the early 20th Century, evidence early notions of biculturalism. While these positions have been both advocated for and against, contemporary understandings of Måori cultural nationalism, however, can be found in the more recent protest movements of the 1970s, 1980s and particularly, 1990s (Poata-Smith 1996; Webster 1998).
The rise of Måori cultural nationalism, as a dominant and persuasive ideology can be found in, as Poata-Smith (1996, p.106) notes, “… the politics … [and] in the struggle to win Måori studies and language programmes in the education system”. The movement would, however, extend further than its initial goals when it was adopted as State policy in the 1980s in
programmes advanced toward the Måori population to cure social inequalities and negotiate race-relations (Webster 1998). With its focus on “culture” and “cultural differences”, Måori cultural nationalism was less threatening as an ideology, than those questioning the
legitimacy of the State to govern Måori (Poata-Smith 1996, pp.97-116).
As discussed in Chapters Four and Five, the Treaty settlement process, adoption of biculturalism as the official State policy of how to effect harmonious race-relations,
reconciling the past through an understanding of Måori and Påkehå based on differences in ethnicity and culture, combined with a period of economic reform, would have a significant effect on theories regarding Måori society. Through the Treaty settlement and reconciliation process in the aftermath of the protest movements in the 1970s and 1980s, focus fell on the binary categories of Måori/Påkehå, coloniser/colonised, victim/perpetrator,
radicals/conservatives, good/bad, Måori/New Zealanders and us/them. The dynamics of these binary categories have been used as strategies by cultural nationalists in opposition to biculturalism, Måori sovereignty, Treaty settlement process and race relations in the “we are all New Zealanders” debates (Poata-Smith 2005, p.212).
The adoption of Måori cultural nationalist propositions has not been without tension or resistance from inside the Måori population as well. The broader Måori political movements
have always been heterogeneous, rather than homogeneous and based upon different positions inside the Måori groups on how to effect strategies on a wide raft of issues. Dun Mihaka (quoted in Webster 1998, p.48), who triggered the 1986 Te Reo Måori claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, was highly critical of the move toward Måori cultural nationalist and bicultural politics. Mihaka, responding to Donna Awatere’s Måori Sovereignty articles stated:
There are of course other reasons why I disagree with our New Zealand situation being divided into a Påkehå world/Måori world dispute … If we were able to do this consistently, it would increase the chances that people would stop using such shallow definitions as ‘Påkehå law’, ‘Påkehå institution’, ‘Påkehå parliament’ etc, to make a point.
A number of key figures in the protest movements of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and present are highly critical of the Maori cultural national framework, and the way in which the Treaty settlement process has been conducted (see Titewhai Harawira 2004, Rangi Kemara 2010; Dun Mihaka (quoted in Webster 1998); Merata Mita 2010, Eva Rickard 1996 and Annette Sykes 1994; 2010).
6.1.2 The Måori cultural national propositions
Måori cultural nationalist propositions make explicit statements about a Måori worldview, collective identity, cultural values and spirituality and Måori subjectivity (Marie and Haig 2006b, pp. 17-21). Furthermore the Måori cultural nationalist position reframes the broader Måori protest movements (from the signing of the Treaty to the present date) as involved in an on-going process toward biculturalism and/or resolution.62 New Zealand’s history is significantly more complex and fluid than the characterisation of two distinct ethnic and cultural groups locked in perpetual conflict with one another in an attempt to meet at the common destination of biculturalism. For example, Måori fought on both sides of the New Zealand wars, a theme that is highlighted and utilised with great effect in Chapter Ten, Utu (1983).
The reframing of New Zealand into the bicultural two world-view model has not been without controversy. The historian, WH Oliver (2001, pp.28-29) argues that through the Waitangi Tribunal’s interpretation of history a form of ahistorical “presentism” has become evident in works which advance a quest for “retrospective utopia” type analyses of New
82
Zealand society and race-relations (see also Sharp and McHugh 2001; Poata-Smith 2005, pp. 211-217). It is important to note, however, that the Waitangi Tribunal process is adversarial whereby agents for both the Crown and the claimants must present their case of historical interpretation.
For ease of reference, the tenets of Måori cultural nationalism are that: 1. Måori are organised within a whånau, hapu and iwi model;
2. Colonisation is the causal explanation as to why Måori are over-represented in all negative social indices. Commensurate with this view, over-turning the colonial process and returning to pre-contact or “traditional” Måori society is necessary to cure contemporary societal problems;
3. There are two world-views in New Zealand society, one Måori and one Påkehå, which are constructed in binary opposition to one another. Membership to each group is defined by “ethnicity” and “culture”;
4. Within the Måori world-view, the core concerns of the Måori population are the reclamation and revitalisation of culture and tradition; and
5. Due to differences in world-views, Måori and non-Måori hold fundamentally conflicting attitudes.
6. A secure Måori cultural identity will ensure that the adverse affects of colonisation will be overcome.63
Within the Måori Cultural Nationalist discourse, the social position of Måori has been attributed to the impact of colonisation and the cure posited to alleviate Måori social disparities was a return to the “traditional” world of Måori society.64 The recently released flagship policy of the Måori Party, Whånau Ora (2010) is a clear example of public social policy that is underpinned by Måori cultural nationalist tenets of how best to alleviate the disproportionate inequalities affecting the Måori population (Boulton, Gifford and Potaka- Osborne 2010). It is important to note that in a different social context, Måori over-
representation in negative social indices was attributed to a lack of civilisation and integration which is made explicit in the Hunn Report.65 In essence, it is the same problem, but with different explanations and informed by different ideologies in different social contexts.
The notion of decolonising Måori from the effects of colonisation is a core part of the Måori cultural nationalist narrative. What has been advanced is that the social concerns of the Måori population, as well as the over-representation of Måori in the negative social indices, is as a result of the colonial project. Commensurate with this view, the social disparities of Måori are attributed to the loss of land, resources and culture. In this fashion, the Måori group would be constructed in a contradictory fashion as first, the victims of colonisation who as a result had lost their land, resources and culture and second, as in a perpetual state of trying to return to a pre-contact Måori world through the reclamation of culture. Thus, what underpins Måori cultural nationalism is the notion of a “rescue and reunite mission” (Marie and Haig 2006b, pp. 17-21) to return alienated Måori to their “traditional” roots or
alternatively, advance the idea that “culture” is the central issue for the Måori population. This rescue or reunite thematic is strongly reflected in both Once were warriors (1994) and Whale Rider (2002) in promoting the thesis that the Måori population can overcome societal problems by either returning or maintaining traditional Måori culture as the focal point of Måori society. It is important to note, that the loss of Måori culture and alienation of land and resources was a result of successive Government policies that sought to integrate Måori into wider New Zealand society. The reclamation of culture, land and resources are worthy and just endeavours in their own-right. What is at issue is how robust the Måori cultural
nationalist and bicultural premise of culture as a cure for societal ills in the Måori population is. For example, one of the central premises of Måori cultural nationalism is that “culture” and a secure Måori cultural “identity” would lead to the political and economic freedom of the Måori population (Webster 1998, pp.107-108). Currently as at 2010, however, and some two decades after the period known as the Måori Renaissance, the Måori ethnic group
remains disproportionately impoverished in comparison to non-Måori (Ministry of Women’s Affairs 2001; Collins 2010).