Dame Anne Salmond: Hybrid society cannot be homogenised

COMMENT

Don Brash's speech at Orewa has made many New Zealanders think again about ethnic relations. The challenge is to ensure that the dialogue is constructive. There is a danger that Pakeha and Maori New Zealanders will go off into different conversational huddles, reinforcing their own prejudices without effort to listen to each other.

At the heart of the debate is the question of what it means to be a New Zealander. It has been good to see agreement emerging across ethnic lines on some basic values - the idea of a "fair go", for instance, and that love of this place is common to all who were born here.

While most appear to hold fast to the view that every child born in this country should have a fair chance to make a good life for themselves and their families, there is widespread consensus that this is not happening.

As Dr Brash acknowledged in his Orewa speech, improved educational, health and economic outcomes for young people who are disadvantaged are critical to the future of the country. This makes sense in a country that has a competitive advantage in its relatively youthful population. But a rapidly increasing proportion of these young people is from low-income backgrounds, and their talents are often wasted.

It so happens that many of this group are Maori or Pacific, and their fate will help to determine New Zealand's economic and social success or failure.

Since this seems to be agreed across the political spectrum, why the furore? The main point at dispute is whether ethnicity or socio-economic status lies at the root of these disparities, in health, education, housing and income.

Because those who are disadvantaged are so often Maori or Pacific people, we are talking about many of the same individuals. While this might appear to be a trivial issue of semantics, Dr Brash has, in fact, tapped into a deep vein of unease about how we understand ourselves as New Zealanders.

At present, our ideas of national identity are being buffeted by increasing diversity and radical shifts in demographic balances. It is tempting to hark back to days when the nation seemed more homogeneous - although that was always an illusion. It is pointless to declare that, as New Zealanders, we are all the same, and to try to deal with diversity by defining it out of existence. Life isn't that simple.

New Zealand is caught up in tensions that challenge many other democratic countries. In many places, globalisation is accompanied by increased fragmentation of local and ethnic identities as people struggle to retain a sense of self in a world that often seems overwhelming and chaotic. This puts nation states at risk, seducing leaders into trying to simplify complex issues of identity.

Some countries have resorted to a monolithic definition of national identity, declaring by fiat that all of their citizens are the same. This usually occurs when ruling elites try to impose their ideas of identity on other citizens by suppressing diversity, provoking resentments that often prove explosive.

In other countries, people have tried to simplify the matter with a binary definition of identity, in which one main group in a country is defined in relation to another. This has also proved dangerous because where societies are polarised along ethnic or religious lines, antagonisms can spiral out of control, particularly if inflamed by irresponsible leaders - witness Northern Ireland, Bosnia, or Rwanda.

In New Zealand, as in other places, binary definitions of identity have proved hazardous. Inspired by ideas of bi-culturalism and a Treaty of Waitangi partnership between Maori and the Crown, successive governments have flirted with ideas of split nationhood, leaving many New Zealanders feeling marginalised and disaffected.

In the recent Court of Appeal decision on the foreshore and seabed, for example, no mention was made of the relationships which Pakeha New Zealanders have enjoyed with these places over many generations. It was as though we were back in 1769 or 1840, standing on the beaches and looking at each other as strangers. The backlash that followed was predictable and damaging.

It would be irresponsible, however, for any political leader to seek to exploit these divisions. Both main parties have played a role in taking the country in this direction; and in any case, monolithic ideas of national identity are just as likely to be divisive.

It would be better to get to grips with the diversity of our nation, and set about forging strategies which will be creative and constructive.

It's a basic fact that Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. Their ancestors forged a unique society before other settlers arrived, mainly from Britain. Wholesale European settlement was authorised by the treaty, which promised that they and their possessions would be respected, and treated fairly. It would be shameful to disregard those promises.

Maori language, arts, marae, tribal histories remain different from their European equivalents, despite 200 years of cultural and demographic exchanges. They exist nowhere else in the world, and help to define what's special about this country.

By the same token, it would be foolish to undermine efforts to ensure that Maori and Pacific Islanders succeed alongside other New Zealanders. Progress is being made; it makes no sense to overturn it. Given current demographic trends, this would destroy our chances of building long-term social and economic prosperity.

We have no option except to find common ground. A high proportion of New Zealanders have both Maori and Pakeha ancestors; many families have both Maori and non-Maori members. Contemporary life, from the All Blacks to Whale Rider, owes much of its vitality to such creative convergences between people and traditions. Increasingly, this includes Pacific and Asian influences as well. New Zealand is becoming a hybrid society, which can neither be homogenised nor split down the middle. We'd better get used to diversity, and learn to handle it responsibly - it's inescapable, and it's our future.

How, then, to build a successful country in which people from all walks of life can find common cause with each other?

I'd suggest, by fostering those institutions and activities that bind diverse individuals together - kinship and family; voluntary and community organisations; sport and the arts; schools and universities; a pride in our shared heritage as New Zealanders.

Attempts to impose uniformity will breed resentment, not a sense of unity. This requires mutual respect and appreciation, so that people from different backgrounds can participate, succeed and flourish.

* Dame Anne Salmond is the Auckland University pro vice chancellor (equal opportunity) and a distinguished professor of Maori studies.

Herald Feature: Sharing a Country