'What I Do' (The Sequel)

Maori Issues In Research - Short Assignment
by Danny Rudd

My name is Danny Rudd, I am a Pakeha New Zealander, born in Rotorua, and I have lived most of my adult life in Christchurch and Wellington. My mother lived her entire life in the central North Island, her parents were both first generation New Zealanders born to English parents. My father was born in Hokitika on the West Coast of the South Island, and spent his early adulthood in Christchurch before moving north to settle in Rotorua. His father was a second generation New Zealander of Scottish heritage, and his mother was a first generation New Zealander born to English parents. There is not a drop of Maori blood in my body, but as a gay man with a half-Maori partner, I believe I can relate somewhat to the concerns of Maori in regards to the range of approaches that have been taken in researching Maori people and communities. The following will outline the research approaches described by Walsh-Tapiata (1997) and Ruwhiu (1999), arguing that for someone of my standing in relationship to Maori, a Maori-Centred research approach is optimal.

Ruwhiu (1999, pp. 44-50) describes seven research approaches that have been taken in studying Maori and their communities, and which together comprise a continuum from disempowering to empowering. The first of these is the Pirating approach (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.44), in which non-Maori researchers make use of Maori informants and then present the resulting knowledge as their own insights without acknowledging the contributions of those informants. This approach was commonly taken by anthropologists and other social researchers in Colonial times, it would be a mistake however to believe this approach is no longer taken.

The second research approach identified by Ruwhiu (1999, p.45) is the Restructuring approach, in which the particular, culturally and geographically bound experiences and understandings of Maori are fitted into the cultural understandings of another group, commonly of the European settlers, downplaying the differences between them and misrepresenting Maori in so doing. Ruwhiu (1999, p.45) notes that while this approach is inherently limiting to the group being studied, it has paved the way for more equitable relations.

The third research approach described by Ruwhiu (1999, pp.45-46) is the Third-Party approach, in which researcher and researched agree upon an aide or supervisor who facilitates the process of information-gathering. Ruwhiu (1999, p.46) notes that this approach is not optimal however, for while it gives credit to all contributors, it does not necessarily benefit both parties equally.

The fourth research approach mentioned is the Mentor/Tiaki approach (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.46), in which a researcher gains the benefit of cultural guidance particular to the community being studied and has access to the community as a participant observer, and is accountable to the community. This approach gives Maori a measure of control over the research outcomes.

The fifth approach is the Whanau/Whangai research approach (Ruwhiu, 1999, pp.46-47), where the researcher effectively becomes a member of the Whanau and is expected to meet the obligations of a Whanau member. This approach benefits both the researcher and the researched, allowing the former a far greater understanding of Maori life in being a full participant observer, and benefitting the latter in that the research is intended to strengthen the Whanau, addressing issues that are relevant to that Whanau. This ‘adoptive’ status is conferred on the researcher by the Whanau or Iwi, and cannot be presumed by the researcher. It is entirely possible that my ethnic background and sexuality may prevent my inclusion in this manner.

The sixth approach is the Power-Sharing/Partnership approach (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.47) which emphasises partnership, participation and protection, observing tikanga or appropriate cultural practice, ensuring that both parties derive equal benefits from the work that is done together. Walsh-Tapiata (1997, p.140) notes that this approach affirms the validity of both Maori and Pakeha methodologies, but asserts that Maori methods are most appropriate in dealing with Maori. This approach may be most appropriate for me where I am working with Maori researchers, but may not always be practical, and arguably will limit my own understanding and my usefulness to Maori communities.

The seventh and most optimal approach is the Empowering Outcome approach, which is focused on researching the questions that Maori want to know about and are concerned with creating beneficial outcomes for those researched (Walsh-Tapiata, 1997, p.139). This approach can be divided into Kaupapa Maori and Maori-Centred research models.

Kaupapa Maori research is specifically focused on culture (Walsh-Tapiata, 1997, p.136), it is that which has Maori life and experience as its subject, which is done by Maori researchers, for the benefit of Maori. Kaupapa Maori research highlights the fundamental importance of Whanaunatanga (the establishment of relationships of trust and respect), Te Reo (language and expression), Tikanga Maori (appropriate custom), Rangatiratanga (the right to self-determination) and Mana Wahine/Mana Tane (acknowledgment and respect for the differences between and contributions of both men and women) to Maori people (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.49-50; Walsh-Tapiata, 1997, p.152). I am excluded from participating in Kaupapa Maori research because I have no Maori blood, however I do not feel excluded in this respect, for while the insistence of Kaupapa Maori researchers that only Maori do research on Maori can certainly be seen as being biologically determinist (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.50), I can sympathise with the sentiments that underlie this position.

I understand that retaining some control over the research that is done on one’s own community is an assertion of the validity of that community’s unique perspective, and affords some protection against researchers unsympathetic to the issues faced by that community. Certainly there has been plenty of research done on queer communities and individuals by ‘outsiders’ which has failed to describe the realities of queer people’s lives and has in fact been used to further marginalise and even criminalise them. Like Maori, lesbian and gay people still face discrimination and issues of invisibility (Baker, 2001, pp.99-100).

I believe however that it is not necessary to experience first-hand the particular form of oppression, discrimination and exploitation faced by a minority to see how unjust it is and work to change it, and indeed there are plenty of Pakeha who sympathise with Maori (Melbourne, 1995, p.16). Maori must seek alliances with other oppressed and marginalised groups across ethnic divisions, as they have many of the same concerns. The insistence that research on Maori communities and Maori people should only be conducted by Maori researchers is inherently limiting, depriving Maori of valuable allies and access to the often greater resources of the non-Maori majority (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.114-115). Maori, particularly, are often materially disadvantaged and thus lacking in resources to challenge the prevailing system (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.208-209; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.114-115).

It can be argued that circumstances only really improve for minorities when they have allies who are not part of their group, as those ‘alien’ to the wider society often need endorsement from others in the mainstream to be accepted. The application of the Maori-Centred research approach presents an ideal opportunity to forge such alliances. Maori-Centred research shares with Kaupapa Maori research the privileging of Maori experience and world-views, the emphasis on Maori participation at all levels of research, and the expectation that Maori research be conducted in ways that are culturally appropriate to Maori (Ruwhiu, 1999, p.48). It does not, however, necessarily exclude non-Maori, and is therefore the optimum approach for researchers like myself.

Walsh-Tapiata (1997, p.134-135) notes that researchers often find themselves greeted with suspicion and even contempt by Maori, who have been marginalised, misrepresented and exploited by Eurocentric academics in the past. Given my ‘outsider’ status and the various Iwi’s potentially differing responses to the prospect of a non-Maori researcher, I would expect some resistance from Whanau and Iwi, as such it would be appropriate for me to approach the community’s leaders for guidance, and to make myself and my intentions known. I would need to demonstrate an awareness of the validity of Maori understandings and emphasise that the work is to be collaborative, and that the community will be involved in the decision making process at every step if they so choose, including in deciding the intended outcomes of the research.

Key to this process is the principal of Whanaunatanga, the establishment of relationships of respect between myself and the community or individuals I wish to work with, a transparency about who I am, what the research is intended for and how it will benefit them. If possible, the involvement of Maori researchers held in high esteem by the Iwi should be sought, and I should demonstrate some proficiency with Te Reo (Walsh-Tapiata, 1997, p.153). This last may present a particular challenge, however preparedness (perhaps through enrolment in a Maori language course at Te Wananga O Aotearoa or similar provider) may offset this difficulty, and certainly under a Mentor/Tiaki approach some assistance may be provided by the Whanau or iwi. A third and final issue that may cause difficulties, as already noted above, is my identity as a gay man, this may be too problematic in some cases, and yet I would venture that openness, persistence, and the support of a respected takatāpui advocate may overcome this barrier.


 
References
Baker, M. (2001). Families, labour and love: Family diversity in a changing world. Crow’s Nest NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

McLennan, G. Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students, 2nd ed. New Zealand: Pearson Education.

Melbourne, H. (1995). Maori sovereignty: The Maori perspective. New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.

Poata-Smith, E. Te Ahu. (1996). He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest. In P. Spoonley, C. Macpherson and D. Pearson (Eds.) Nga Patai: Racism and ethnic relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 91-115). New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Ruwhiu, L. A. (1999). Maori knowledges, philosophies and research. Te Puawaitanga o te ihi me te wehi: The politics of Maori social development policy. New Zealand: Massey University.

Walsh-Tapiata, W. (1997). Te Rangahau: Methodological concerns. Raukawa Social Services: Origins and future directions. Waiho ma te iwi e whakarite. New Zealand: Massey University.

Maori Cultural Nationalism

by DannyR

Evan Te Ahu Poata-Smith’s He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest (1996) analyses the Maori cultural renaissance and political movement since the 1970s, highlighting the rise of Maori cultural nationalism and identifying its failures. The following outlines these failures and explores the validity of Poata-Smith’s analysis, concluding that while the focus on Maori identity has indeed brought about positive changes in New Zealand society, it is debatable whether these advances are in fact outweighed by the shortcomings of cultural nationalism.

Maori cultural nationalism has been primarily concerned with enabling Maori studies and language to be taught in schools, and with gaining recognition in public institutions and policies for the existence and concerns of Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.106). Poata-Smith does not deny that the rediscovery and preservation of Maori culture is important, however he is highly critical of the shift within the Maori rights movement since the 1980s toward the emphasis on Maori identity and culture over political demonstration. Chief among Poata-Smith’s criticisms are that the rediscovery of Maori culture has superseded demonstrations for Maori rights and systemic change, that rhetoric around Maori identity obscures the sometimes significant differences in the actual experiences of Maori people, that the movement fails to challenge the capitalist system that creates the inequalities between Maori and Pakeha, and indeed between Maori of different socio-economic classes, and that the increasing autonomy of the Maori movement limits its effectiveness.

Cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, p.106-107, 113) argues, is a substitute for political activism and actual systemic change; its emphasis on changing individual lifestyles and developing individual Maori identity as the antidote to the ills inflicted by Pakeha society actually leads to people being less political. No Maori movement has been built on a foundation of cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, pp.113-114) notes, nevertheless the ideas and language of cultural nationalism have been adopted by Maori social movements and have inhibited activism and political involvement.

A second criticism of Maori cultural nationalism is that it treats Maori as a unified, homogenous group; from the poorest to the richest, Maori experience is assumed to be the same (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). There is no recognition that middle-class Maori have the same sort of privileges relative to working-class Maori that Pakeha middle-class people have relative to Pakeha working-class people. Cultural nationalism also fails to recognise that Maori are not and have never been one homogenous people; generational, gender and tribal differences have always existed, and these are often in conflict (McLennan et al., 2004, p.204; Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158; Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). This assumption that there is one true Maori identity encourages Maori to fight over what constitutes ‘authentic’ Maori identity, failing to acknowledge that personal identities are embedded in historical contexts, that identities change over time, and that individuals often identify with multiple groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).

Similarly, cultural nationalists assume that Pakeha are one homogenous group and characterise them as the enemy of Maori, inherently and irredeemably greedy and exploitative, even those who would be allies (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.113). The emphasis on individual identity personalises the conflict, and thus Pakeha people and their presence in Aotearoa become the problem, rather than the capitalist system that perpetrates the inequalities between these groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112).

A further criticism levelled at cultural nationalism is that it has eliminated solidarity between Maori and other oppressed groups, its proponents have advocated the creation and maintenance of an autonomous Maori movement, based on the idea that Pakeha and other non-Maori cannot understand the oppression suffered by Maori people and should therefore be excluded. Poata-Smith (1996, p.107) notes that Donna Awatere and other Maori academics attacked and alienated other Left-wing social movements with accusations that these groups profited by and were in fact predicated on the exploitation of Maori, rather than gunning for the Right and the class system that created the inequalities in the first place. By excluding Pakeha, Poata-Smith (1996, p.114-115) argues, the Maori movement limits itself, depriving itself of Pakehas’ greater access to resources and channels of influence, and swinging from Left to Right policies and ideologies in an absence of any actual power to create change. Maori autonomy allows middle-class interests to hijack the movement and ensure that working-class concerns remain marginal, thus robbing the movement of its power to actually improve the lives of the very people who most need its advocacy (Poata-Smith, 1996, 115).

Poata-Smith (1996, pp.107-109) charges the Maori elite with complicity, in that they consistently fail to challenge the exploitative capitalist economic system that disadvantages Maori. This elite is made up of academics and corporate bosses, wealthy middle-class people employed by the Labour government of the mid-90s to simultaneously push for Maori interests and support the status quo; rewarded with opportunity, prestige and wealth, and thus effectively divorced from the realities of working-class life that the majority of Maori experience (McLennan et al., 2004, pp. 143, 208; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.109-110). Poata-Smith notes that since the 1980’s the Maori movement has fought for precisely the political changes that benefit these already wealthy, middle-class Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).

Poata-Smith’s analysis is correct on a number of points. In his assertion that Maori identity was unheard-of prior to European colonisation he is supported by Durie (1998, pp.53-55) and Sir Tipene O’Reagan (Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158), among others. He is also undoubtedly correct in asserting that the rediscovery of Maori heritage is valuable, but that it does not guarantee change in the present and future on its own, and therefore cannot be an end in itself. If action does not follow inspiration, all that will be accomplished is increased anger and resentment over past injustices, which will in turn make Maori people less inclined to engage with the problem in future.

Poata-Smith recognises that this rediscovery of Maori heritage is intended to enable a person to take action, but notes that this action is essentially individual, that is, increased Maori self-identification leads only to changes in one’s own lifestyle. The idea is that if more people are more ‘authentically’ Maori, they will make personal political choices consistent with that identity and in so doing influence the building of a society that is fair to Maori. This approach limits the spread of political discourse through society; individual choices in isolation make little differences in large populations, and clearly attempts at one-on-one persuasion will not be nearly as effective as an organised campaign to reach as many people as possible. Cultural nationalism, with its emphasis on individual identity and choice, fails to address larger, structural inequalities between Maori and Pakeha and ultimately renders Maori protest ineffective (Sissons, 1993).

Poata-Smith is also right to object to cultural nationalists’ insistence on the autonomy of the Maori movement, it is not necessary to experience first-hand the particular form of oppression, discrimination and exploitation faced by a minority to see how unjust it is and work to change it. Clearly there are plenty of Pakeha who sympathise with Maori (Melbourne, 1995, p.16), those that do not may be those who are unfamiliar with the issues facing Maori or those who are engaged in the promulgation of the dominant narrative, that Maori are receiving ‘special treatment,’ that they are lazy and so on; either way the Maori movement has failed to impress upon such people the extent of the difficulties faced by Maori people (Melbourne, 1995, p.160).

Of course there are other possible explanations for Pakeha indifference, certainly many Pakeha also feel disenfranchised and exploited and are perhaps too preoccupied with their own struggles. Spoonley (1995, pp.99, 110) notes that ‘Pakeha’ is itself an ambiguous and contested term and suggests that Pakeha are still in the process of making the awkward transition from seeing themselves as having been colonised and exploited by the British to seeing themselves as the colonisers, and thus they may not yet fully appreciate the Maori perspective.

It follows that Maori must seek alliances with other oppressed and marginalised groups across ethnic divisions, as they have many of the same concerns. Maori, particularly, are often materially disadvantaged and thus lacking in resources to challenge the prevailing system (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.208-209; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.114-115). It can be argued that circumstances only really improve for minorities when they have allies who are not part of their group, as those ‘alien’ to the wider society need endorsement from others in the mainstream to be accepted. Certainly traditional Maori ways of life are alien to the Pakeha majority, Maori language and cultural expression having been all but banned from schools for the greater part of the twentieth century (McLennan et al., 2004, p.201).

There are points with which we might take issue in Poata-Smith’s analysis, however. A first objection is the unsupported assertion that cultural nationalists see the differences between Maori and Pakeha as biologically based (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112). He posits that racism is instead a product of capitalism, but does not make these links explicit. McLennan et al. (2004, pp.208-209) suggest that Maori disadvantage is due to New Zealand’s colonial history combined with the capitalist incorporation of Maori into the working-class. European colonisers thus came in, took over, deprived the native peoples and forced them into low-paid labouring jobs, and then interpreted their relative poverty as proof that Maori are racially inferior or just plain lazy.

Poata-Smith also questions the validity of a singular Maori identity, given that there are great disparities between tribes, genders, classes and the like, but others argue that this innovation is not necessarily a bad thing, as a great many Maori now live in cities and see their class as more important to their identity than their tribal affiliation. Some of these people do not have access to the traditional Maori world of marae and iwi, and so cultural nationalism allows them to retain a sense of connection with their ancestry in a way that they feel is relevant (Durie, 1998, pp.57-59). Sissons (1993) notes that Maori identity has such beneficial effects as improved self-esteem on the individual level and more harmonious relations at the group level. Others note that indigenous cultural revivals around the world are important precursors to community construction and mobilization (Najel, 1998, pp.252-253).

Lastly, it should be noted that subsequent to the publication of He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest, New Zealand has undergone significant changes to its political systems, going so far as to institute Maori seats in Parliament. Future research should examine the extent to which these changes exacerbate or compensate for the problems identified by Poata-Smith.

In conclusion, cultural nationalism has contributed in a number of positive ways to New Zealand society, and to Maori in particular, and can be seen as an important element in the movement for Maori equality. It is not, however, without significant problems, most importantly that it dissuades Maori from engaging in political activism, alienates the Maori movement from similar social movements that would otherwise be its allies, fails to recognise the sometimes substantial differences in the interests of those it claims to represent, and ultimately fails to challenge the system that creates the very inequalities in society that it purports to fight.

References
Durie, M. (1998). Mana Tupuna, identity and heritage. Te Mana, Te Kawanatanga: The politics of Maori self-determination. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

McLennan, G. Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students, 2nd ed. New Zealand: Pearson Education.

Melbourne, H. (1995). Maori sovereignty: The Maori perspective. New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.

Najel, J. (1998). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. In M. W. Hughey (ed.) New tribalisms: The resurgence of race and ethnicity (pp.237-272). New York: New York University Press.

Poata-Smith, E. Te Ahu. (1996). He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest. In P. Spoonley, C. Macpherson and D. Pearson (eds.) Nga Patai:Racism and ethnic relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 91-115). New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Sissons, J. (1993). The systemisation of tradition: Maori culture as a strategic resource. Oceania, 64(2), 97-116.

Spoonley, P. (1995). Constructing ourselves: The postcolonial politics of Pakeha. In M. Wilson and A. Yeatman (eds.) Justice and identity: Antipodean practices (pp.96-115). New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.