ESTIMACIÓN DE TIPOS

In   our   post/neo-­‐colonial   society,   the   medical   gaze   and   the   disciplinary   gaze   can   be   subsumed  under  the  broader  colonial  gaze.  The  colonial  gaze  is  also  embedded  in  the   principles   of   the   Enlightenment,   on   ideas   of   rationality,   civilisation,   and   progress.   For   colonised   peoples,   the   colonial   gaze   transfixes   the   Other   identity   as   abnormal   and   savage,  in  need  of  saving/civilising,  yet  impossible  to  fully  save/civilise  (Bhabha,  1994;   Fanon,  2008).  In  Aotearoa  New  Zealand,  the  colonial  gaze  places  Māori  as  the  target.  

Colonization  is  a  process  of  power/domination  that  functions  through  the  gathering  and   interpreting   of   knowledge   about   the   Other,   and   which   subsequently   reinforces   the   colonizer’s  own  self-­‐image  as  civilized/superior  (Bhabha,  1994).  According  to  Bhabha,   through   “'knowing'   the   native   population   in   these   terms,   discriminatory   and   authoritarian  forms  of  political  control  are  considered  appropriate”  and  so  Others  are   “then  deemed  to  be  both  the  cause  and  effect  of  the  system,  imprisoned  in  the  circle  of   interpretation”   (1994,   83).   Bhabha   draws   on   Césaire’s   (1972)   ‘thingification’   to   articulate  the  disempowering  and  dehumanizing  effects  of  colonization  for  Indigenous   peoples.  

The  effects  of  colonization  continue  in  Aotearoa  New  Zealand  today,  as  in  other  ‘post’-­‐ colonial  nations.  Continued  social,  health,  and  economic  disparities  between  Indigenous   peoples  and  non-­‐Indigenous  people  are  evidence  of  this,  “despite  political  or  individual   rhetoric   that   may   claim   otherwise”   (Biggs   &   Baird,   2009,   2).   Young   Māori   mothers   challenge  cultural,  social  and  medical  norms  by  being  non-­‐Pākehā,  by  engaging  in  non-­‐ normative   (‘too   young’)   sexual   (and   social)   activities,   and   choosing   to   mother   ‘too   young’.  Young  mothers  (usually  associated  with  being  Māori)  are  often  portrayed  as  a   burden  on  the  health  and  social  welfare  systems,  and  as  incapable/negligent  (Breheny,   2006).   However,   by   drawing   upon   Bhabha,   Foucault   and   Butler,   and   their   theories   of   resistance,  we  can  problematize  these  interpretations.  

Cultural  difference,  the  process  of  negotiation  allowing  self-­‐identification,  muddies  the   waters  of  colonial  knowledge  and  in  doing  so  changes  the  identity  of  both  the  colonized   and   the   colonizer.   By   desiring,   seeking,   being   more   than   a   static   given   identity,   subordinated  peoples  can  re-­‐appropriate  themselves  and  their  histories  through  the  act   of   self-­‐articulation   (Bhabha,   1994).   This   takes   place   in   the   Third   Space,   between   the   speaker  and  the  listener,  where  discursive  conditions  enable  signs  to  “be  appropriated,   translated,   rehistoricized   and   read   anew”   (Bhabha,   1994,   37).   In   the   Third   Space,   the   roles  of  the  seer  and  the  seen  can  be  reversed  (Bhabha,  1994).  As  with  Foucault,  Bhabha   argues  that  the  colonizing  gaze  of  disciplinary  apparatuses  depends  on  surveillance  for   “strategies  of  objectification,  normalization  and  discipline”  (1994,  83).  Bhabha  offers  a   theory  of  resistance  to  this  totalizing  power,  where  “the  look  of  surveillance  returns  as   the   displacing   gaze   of   the   disciplined,   where   the   observer   becomes   the   observed   and   'partial'  representation  rearticulates  the  whole  notion  of  identity  and  alienates  it  from   essence”  (1994,  89).    

The   Third   Space   produces   new   forms   of   representation   including   mimicry,   sly   civility   and  hybridity  (Bhabha,  1994).  Mimicry,  the  partial  representation  of  the  Other  through   a  mask  of  conformity,  turns  the  gaze  of  the  observer/colonizer  back  on  itself.  Sly  civility,   the   performance   of   the   Other   as   the   good   subject/object,   thinly   veils   the   Other’s   contempt/mockery,  a  private  joke  on  the  colonizer’s  authority.    Hybridity  appropriates   and   merges   representations   from   both   colonizer   and   colonized,   producing   identities   that  challenge  the  “rules  of  recognition”  (Bhabha,  1994,  114),  ambivalently  “disciplinary   and   disseminatory”   (Bhabha,   1994,   112).   Mimicry,   sly   civility   and   hybridity   elude   resemblance,   instead   producing   “a   subversive   strategy   of   subaltern   agency   that   negotiates   its   own   authority   through   a   process   of   iterative   'unpicking'   and   incommensurable,   insurgent   relinking”   (Bhabha,   1994,   185).   Self-­‐enunciation,   talking-­‐ back  through  iterative  subjectivity,  is  a  strategy  of  resistance.  

Foucault  also  offers  a  theory  of  resistance  to  domination.  Foucault  opposes  binary  views   of  power,  instead  arguing  that  it  “comes  from  below”  (1980,  94).  For  Foucault  (1980),   resistance   is   present   everywhere,   even   in   those   most   downtrodden   places.   Foucault   states   “[p]ower   is   everywhere;   not   because   it   embraces   everything,   but   because   it   comes   from   everywhere”   (1980,   93).   There   are   no   relations,   familial,   sexual   or  

otherwise,  exterior  to  relations  of  power.  Power  is  both  cause  and  effect  of  relations  on   every   level   (Foucault,   2009).   Hence,   individuals   are   subject   to   power,   but   also   active   agents   of   power.   They   shape   and   are   shaped   by   power   (Foucault,   1980).   Power,  once   dispersed,  is  liable  to  a  life  of  its  own,  to  change,  to  be  appropriated.  Individuals  are  able   to  determine  their  own  identities  through  ethical  self-­‐formation,  the  work  that  one  does   on  oneself,  to  ‘know  oneself’  (Foucault,  2010).  This  affords  subjects  agency,  albeit  within   the   matrix   of   power   that   is   ever   changing   (yet   ever-­‐present),   and   offers   endless   possibilities  for  resistance.    

Butler’s   (2006)   theory   of   signification   and   identity   as   performative   is   valuable   when   considering  how  subjects  are  formed.  Identity,  as  a  signifying  practice,  is  “constituted  by   but   perhaps   not   determined   by   discourse”   (Butler,   2006,   195).   For   Butler   (2006),   the   rules   of   signification   are   repressive   and   also   productive,   as   they   enable   new   forms   of   signification  to  be  enacted.  This  is  where  agency  can  be  found,  “within  the  possibility  of   a   variation   on…repetition”   (Butler,   2006,   198).   Following   from   Foucault’s   concept   of   power/resistance  (1980),  Butler  argues  that  “it  is  only  within  the  practices  of  repetitive   signifying   that   a   subversion   of   identity   becomes   possible”   (Butler,   2006,   198).   For   Butler,  if  we  view  identity  as  an  effect  (produced  by  repetitive  performance),  we  can  see   new   possibilities   for   agency,   where   identity   is   “neither   fatally   determined   nor   fully   artificial  and  arbitrary”  (Butler,  2006,  201).  

Using  these  complementary  concepts  of  enunciation  (Bhabha,  1994),  power/resistance   (Foucault,   1980),   and   signification   (Butler,   2006),   we   can   problematize   dominant   discourses  that  speak  ‘of’  and  ‘for’  young  Māori  mothers,  and  that  (in  doing  so)  interpret   them   as   abnormal,   as   perpetually   Other.   Dominant   developmental   and   medical   discourses   about   adolescence   and   teen   parenthood   can   be   seen   as   certain   games   of   veridiction,  neither  universal  nor  accidental.  Through  exploring  the  ways  in  which  these   young   Māori   mothers   articulate/enunciate   their   own   subjectivities   we   find   a   Third   Space   where   self-­‐enunciation/self-­‐signification/self-­‐formation   resists   cultural   hegemony,  subverts  normative  assumptions  about  appropriate  life  course/life  choices,   and  problematizes  stereotypes.  

This   chapter   is   divided   into   four   sections.   First,   I   discuss   resistance   in   the   form   of   ‘taonga   tuku   iho’   (treasures   to   pass   on),   including   the   continuation   of   whakapapa   (genealogy)  and  Mātauranga  Māori  (Māori  knowledge  systems).  Second,  I  discuss  ‘mana   motuhake’  (autonomy/self-­‐determination),  including  resistance  to  social  prejudices  and   stereotypes.   Third,   I   discuss   ‘ngā   tūmanako’   (aspirations/hopes).   Finally,   I   reflect   on   how  these  acts  of  resistance  are  situated  in  complex  fields  of  power  (Foucault,  1980),   considering  the  works  of  Foucault,  Bhabha  and  Butler,  as  well  as  critical  youth  theory   and  Indigenous  perspectives.