I mean the structures that the university provided were really bad, but my brother was involved in O[ verseas] C[hristian] F[ ellowship] and those structures were incredible. I mean the OCF group was caring. They went out of their way to feed you . . . they knew that you were going to be lonely and homesick. They went out of their way to come and meet you, take you out and invite you to their house and feed you an Asian meal and lend you notes . . . . So that structure was amazing and church was amazing. I mean, you can try to going to church here if you're a stranger in town you'll never get the sort of hospitality that Kiwis give when you're a new student they invite you to their home and stuff; it's amazing [Interview
1 ,
RGSGF].The clubs and similar voluntary organisations provided important social support for these
international students. As in the example above, international students tended to gravitate
toward other international students. However, while some students went a step further and
used these international student-based groups as a springboard (of sorts) into interaction
with Kiwi students, others remained within the confines and comforts of these
international-student based groups. One retumee noted this tendency and commented thus:
I mean certainly there were all these clubs which was supposed to be to be some form of help for international students, which I've always felt actually hindered international students. It was actually a disservice to international students, because they never actually gave them the impetus or the opportunity to actually adjust . . . . Now I'm not saying throw
them in at the deep end, not in that way, but, I think also that . . . you start out at the shallow end [and] the deep end is just too diffic:ult sometimes. I think that's what some of the
support groups do, especially since a lot of international students never ever make a transition out of these support groups into Kiwi society in general. . . . Probably an indication of this is how more and more national groups are set up: Malaysian students associations . . . Singapore students club; now you have the Fijians and the Taiwanese. All of them form their own little club . . . [this] just doesn't happen you know, this transition. So, in that sense, the support groups that we have in those aspects is actually a hindrance and by helping them in on the shallow end we also have vested interest in keeping them in the shallow end because then they can't go . ... I think that that OCF is a major culprit in it .. . . I
certainly feel that their whole OCF was possibly a greater culprit than many of the other groups . . . . There was this . . . assumption that just because they're international you've got to be different: as an international you've got to �e facing these adjustments which you cannot, it means that you just [find it] too difficult to fit in and to understand the Kiwi or New Zealanders. I mean it's fine if it's the initial point of contact and it's a means of evangelism [pause], but, I mean, I think, the totality of their strategy and the emphasis on the difference, they have a vested interest in keeping that difference open so there is now a
resistance toward doing more stuff with C[hristian] U[nion]. Because . . . there . . . just isn't adequate support from universities for students in general. I actually don't see . . . that . . . the
support that international students needed to get was to help them adjust, but they very soon persuaded them in keeping them apart and [pause] helping them by a level of adjustment. So that was an idea and I don't see how, I mean the only way things work in universities is that I think that this person that tried to help them it very quickly translated into helping, keeping international students apart. [Interview 1 0, RGSGM, 08020 1 ]
Two significant issues derive from this returnee's observation: firstly, that these international-student based groups have a 'vested interest', in the sense that their
raison
d'etre
would be compromised if they interacted with Kiwis; and. secondly, that international students do not get adequate support from universities. The second issue is dealt with shortly, but the suggestion that international student-based groups are being deliberately exclusionary deserves further comment.It would be easy to suggest that these groups are being forced to be exclusionary because of a lack of proactive involvement by the Kiwi cQmmunity or because of inadequate support structures by universities or for any number of other reasons. While these reasons may be a factor in the exclusionary nature of these groups, one must be careful of not over playing the structural and ideological influence and discounting human agency altogether. International students, in this case, have their (generalised) identity in a type of
community, namely a coIDIIiunity of difference. In noting this, however, one has to be very wary of using the descriptive category of 'international students' without recognising that within that category are as many differences as there are similarities: it may provide a useful descriptive tool, but as an analytical tool it should be treated with caution. However, "[e]ssentialist invocations of races, nations, genders, classes, persons and a host of other identities nonetheless remain common in everyday discourse throughout the world" (Calhoun,
1 994: 1 4).
It is this essentialism that informs a particular view of reality, a view that dichotomises 'domestic' students and 'international' students and gives to each category characteristics and expectations. The discourse is one of difference.International-student based groups can, on one level, be perpetuating this difference out of choice and, on another level, out of circumstance. While in choosing to perpetuate these differences, international student-based groups may be subscribing to this discourse of difference; they may also be adhering to a notion of belonging. Simultaneously, international students can root their ( collective) identity in who they are not (namely, 'domestic students') and who they are {'international students'}. It may be a superficial dichotomy, but it is one that provides a modicum of self-security: it is easier to remain with the known than to venture into the unknown. Remaining within groups of other international students, or, at another level, of other co-nationals, eases any experience of culture shock, delimits differences to a superficial level, and avoids, as much as possible, the inherent difficulties in cross-cultural communication.
One returnee identified two groups of international students: those who remain with those from their own countries of origin, and those who mix with everyone. His observation was astute. Returnees who fell into the first categorisation regretted that they had not mixed more with Kiwi students. Returnees who fell into the second categorisation bemoaned their peers for not mixing more; as this returnee noted:
Well those who want to join their own group; I think they . . . took education as secondary. I think they . . . more like . . . having fun. . . . I don't quite like international studies having forming their own group. I mean they are going to other countries they should learn you know the culture, there are more opportunities to learn the cultures um, but to them, besides having their own organisations, having their own their social lives, they're like nothing that they . . . .I don't quite agree with them, I don't quite agree with them you know forming their own group [pause] well I don't know what they usually talk about, ab I don't think I want to join their group [Interview HKS]