Definiciones básicas

In light of such intentions it was necessary to unpack the language through which Maori Affairs policy is articulated and debated. Cram ( 1997:49) has suggested that non-Maori researchers need to deconstruct their own values, history and culture before attempting to understand another. While I had begun this process in earlier studies and research projects, the thesis continued such self-awareness by critically exploring some of the assumed, but culturally-specific, principles upon which the Aotearoa New Zealand state was founded (see Chapter Two) . It also required that I consider several terms commonly utilised in discussion of Maori Affairs policy and justify their place in my research.

First, it was necessary to consider the term 'Miori' itself. Although this word is frequently employed to describe those individuals with Maori ancestry, such use is controversial because it tends to present Maori individuals and communities as a unified and homogenous cultural-political community, rather than one which is as diverse and complex as that assumed to be embodied by the nation-state. Indeed, some iwi advocates (e.g. O'Regan 1995; Parata 1995) commonly speak from the assumption that Maori as a group did not exist before colonisation. In the pre-colonial context, the term 'Maori' literally meant 'normal' or 'usual' with whanau, hapu and, in certain circumstances, iwi groupings being the social units of most significance (Ballara 1998: 19; Durie 1998a:53). Defining Maori as one, seemingly homogenous group is thus regarded by many as part of the 'colonial project'. Nevertheless, other Maori individuals (e.g. Tamihere 1995; Durie 1998a), from both tribal and non-tribal backgrounds, contend that the term 'Maori' may not be traditional, but it is useful in

the contemporary context where tribal afflliations are not necessarily possible or beneficial.

For the sake of brevity, this thesis adopts the term 'Maori' to denote the descendents of whanau, hapll and iwi who are now considered to form a single ethnic group. Such a move is particularly suitable for a study of government policy, which remains targeted largely towards Maori as a homogenous entity, despite increasing recognition (e.g. Cabinet 1995; TPK 1 998a; 200 1c) that Maori individuals and collectivities experience diverse realities. The thesis also frequently refers to

'Mioridom', a shorthand term commonly used in Aotearoa New Zealand to describe wider Maori society.

While utilising the word 'Maori', this thesis acknowledges the contestation that surrounds it by highlighting the diversity contained within Maori society wherever appropriate. In particular, a distinction is made between those who affIliate with traditional 'tribal' descent groups, such as iwi and hapll, and those who cannot or choose not to make such a tribal affiliation by calling upon their whakapapa (genealogy) . The phrase 'urban Miori' is in common usage in Aotearoa New Zealand to describe the latter groupings. However, this thesis follows the Waitangi Tribunal's ( 1998:xxii) lead when avoiding the term because there are urban tribes, as well as some non-tribal Maori organisations not confmed to urban areas. In addition, the Tribunal does not use the term 'pan-tribal' because it fails to distinguish organisations made up of, or working for, those who do not affiliate with tribes from other bodies, such as the National Maori Congress whose members are tribes or descent groups. As a result, the term 'non-tribal' has been adopted by the Tribunal (and this thesis) to describe Maori organisations for whom descent is not the derming principle of organisation. It is important to note, however, that some individuals involved in such organisations may identify strongly with their own tribes.

In unpacking the assumptions behind particular words commonly used in Maori Affairs discourse, it was also necessary to consider the term 'non-Miori', which can only be defined in opposition to Maori as those individuals who self-identify as not being Maori. Such a category ignores differences and parallels between the diverse ethnic groups contained within it. For example, New Zealanders of Maori and Pacific

descent are far more similar in terms of socio-economic statistics (see Statistics NZ 200 1a:90; 200 1b:63-7 1), than Pacific- and European-descended New Zealanders, even though the latter are both included within the non-Maori category. This thesis is also highly critical of the way in which such comparison between Maori and non-Maori has assumed that mimicking non-Maori should be the standard of 'success' for Maori. Finally, the way in which the term 'non-Maori' is often used as a synonym for Pakeha is of concern because this denies the cultural differences of several other ethnic groups included within this category.

Nevertheless, because government policy and players commonly refer to 'non­ Maori' and uncertainty exists as to who they include within this group, the term is used as necessary in the thesis. Where possible, more precise terms are employed and in most cases this involves reference to 'Pikehi'. Also controversial, this word was originally used by Maori to differentiate European colonists from themselves. In contemporary times, it is sometimes used to include all white or non-Maori people, but generally refers to New Zealanders of European descent (see King 199 1 : 8; Gregory 200 1a:A3 . The last three decades have witnessed increasing numbers of such New Zealanders adopting the term to describe themselves (see Gregory 200 1a:A3; Watkin 200 1 :B5). For some influenced by 'post-colonial' thought, this is an attempt to 'enter the otherness' by knowing themselves on Maori terms (During 1985:369-370; see Spoonley 1995:48-49). For many, the term 'Pakeha' simply reflects their commitment to biculturalism or recognition of the Treaty and indigenous rights of Maori (Fleras and Spoonley 1 999:xiii; see King 199 1 :8). Placing myself in this latter category, I have used the word in the thesis to describe non-Maori individuals or groups, usually of European-descent. While not accepting their arguments, I acknowledge that others adamantly reject the term 'Pakeha', citing derogatory translations in the Maori language or an unwillingness to be defined by any Maori word whatsoever (Gregory 200 1a:A3) .

Finally, I have chosen to use the term 'Aotearoa New Zealand', which combines the well-known name of the New Zealand political state with Aotearoa, one of

many Maori terms for the country. I acknowledge that the use of this term is also under debate, even within Maori communities, and do not wish to imply through its use that a shift towards a 'post-colonial' era has occurred (see During 1985:369-37 1 ; Spoonley 1995:48-49; Pihama 1997:8- 15). Yet, I believe that Aotearoa New Zealand is the best linguistic tool available to promote the 'dual nation' status of the country and of the partnership between Maori and the state.

The contestation highlighted in this discussion about the terms I have used to describe Maori Affairs policy issues is not unique to this portfolio nor to Aotearoa New Zealand. The following section indicates the way in which policy in general reflects a plurality of interests that compete for attention within the contemporary, culturally plural liberal-democratic state.