Why we suck : The failure of NZ National Identity - Part Two

Here it is, Part 2 of my two part diatribe on New Zealand nationalism. As I mentioned in my previous post, Its a rehash of an essay I wrote for university, which is why the tone is so formal (and some would say, dreary). I've sprinkled it with italicised commentary, in part to make it more interesting, and in other part to try and cover up the gross logical inconsistences that developed towards the end of this essay, which I admit was written in a mad panic the night before it was due. I'll be back to writing more flippant, less essayish peices next time. After all....Its nearly inaguration day, baby!

In my last post, I talked ad nauseum about civic nationalism, that’s the idea that nationalism gets invented by symbols and traditions. As I mentioned in that post, civic nationalism is my favourite, its intellectually satisfying and doesn’t rely on some wackjob assumptions about people developing a shared sense of togetherness at some point in the distant past, probably when they had to join a team to fight off dinosaurs. But....then I worked out I could make some points better if I pretended I like the theories of ethnic nationalism or cultural nationalism. So, in a victory for quasi-academic flip-floppery, I converted. Ethnic/Cultural Nationalism 4 lyf!

Anthony Smith suggests that nations arise out of close ethnic ties; that core networks of culture and language must form the building blocks of any national identity, ahead of the national symbols and stories beloved by the civic nationalist (which I talked about in my previous post, to great acclaim and the applause of thousands) . To claim that New Zealand has a basis in ethnic nationalism would be to claim that New Zealanders are rooted in a historical and cultural community that exists independently of rituals and symbols, such as the anthem and the flag. But a sense of value in a ‘New Zealand culture’ is superficial at best. The OE (Overseas Experience) pilgrimage to Europe undertaken by young New Zealanders is seen as a chance to be imbued with a deeper understanding of their cultural roots. Since the early days of colonisation, New Zealand has been derided as a cultural backwater, devoid of intellectual tradition and a shared philosophical bond among citizens. Throughout the 1970’s the closest embodiment of the ethnic New Zealander was the booze-soaked, anti-intellectual caricatures of Lynn of Tawa and Fred Dagg. (I wonder if this was the first and only time in history that a supposedly academic essay referenced the vile Ginette McDonald). Arguably, this situation has now improved a deeper appreciation of New Zealand’s local entertainment industry, literature and academia now exists. (ref: Game of Two Halves) But the ethnic nationalist must still struggle to fashion a deep-rooted historical bond amongst a people who remain remarkably derisive of their own history.

This idea segues into the starkest challenge to the expression and mobilization of nationalism in New Zealand. Until now I have discussed nationalism with an explicit focus on the culture and symbols of European, or Pakeha New Zealanders; the descendants of colonisers. This is deliberate, as a nationalist discourse in New Zealand often fails to account for the cultural claims of the indigenous Maori community. (Oooo...here comes the controversy)

To try and reconcile Maori ideals of sovereignty with the justification for the sovereign nation that is espoused by the principle of self-determination is difficult. Maori society rests on the principle of a collective ownership between the Maori community and the land. It would have been inconceivable for traditional Maori conceptualize New Zealand in terms of the principle of self-determination, which is built on the Lockeian construct of obtaining ownership and mastery of a land's resources by dint of your efforts in cultivating the land. However, this cannot be allowed to detract from the legitimacy of Maori claims to New Zealand territory. Will Kymlicka (this poor guy would have got sooo beaten up at my high school with a last name like this) determines nationalism in relation to distinct cultures. For Kymlicka, a nation is defined by its culture, with the state inherently favouring a certain distinct cultural tradition. He argues that in settler societies we can distinguish the nationhood claims of immigrants, who in choosing to emigrate have forgone the right to belong to a nation based upon their original culture, and indigenous communities, who have deep cultural, spiritual and historical links to a territory and who were involuntarily incorporated into settler-societies via conquest or colonisation. He argues that these groups are worthy of the status of nation and some form of self-determination over a given territory as a result. (in other words, its more legitimate for Tame Iti to claim Maori sovereignty over Tuhoe, than it would be for Pansy Wong to claim sovereignty over Howick)

Settler-societies have been reluctant to consider the self-determination claims of indigenous national minorities, often arguing that because they were immigrant nations themselves they had no indigenous population. However there has been a major awakening among settler-societies in recent years in recognizing indigenous peoples as peoples with cultures ‘different from, but not inferior to their own’, and recognizing past injustices. The Australian nation-state, built on dispossession of Aboriginal peoples, has felt increasingly pressured to make amends for its violent colonial past (and the Lost Generation, and the Extermination of every single Aboriginal Tasmanian, and the White Australia Policy, and Baz fucking Lurhmann). The result for Australia, on display during 2008’s ‘Sorry Day’, is a nationalism that is less triumphant, and more reflective, mournful and based on reparation and reconciliation. (In truth, that’s a lie. Australians, on balance, remain arrogant self-righteous prats. But my lecturer was Australian, and I am not above self-censorship of the truth in pursuit of a higher grade...)

To its discredit, Kymlicka’s cultural nationalist model has surprisingly little relevance in a New Zealand context. A central tenet of New Zealand nationalism, used as a major drawcard in the international community, is New Zealand’s ‘racial inclusiveness’. New Zealanders are proud of the haka performed before the start of an All Black test match, and official meetings begin with the traditional Maori powhiri. (again, I’m lying. Most NZ Europeans think the powhiri is a waste of time, and could easily be replaced with a handshake and a smile. But, I couldn’t make the Haka my only example of ‘Stuff White People like’, and by this stage it was 3 in the morning and I was running out of brain). While this is a positive step in fostering cultural awareness, it is no substitute for legitimate self-determination. However for many New Zealanders, tacit approval for selected Maori rituals within an Anglo-centric framework as seen as the high-water mark for the Maori role in New Zealand national identity, not viewed as a barely acceptable minimum.

Intense divisions have erupted in New Zealand society concerning Maori-Pakeha relations. The Foreshore and Seabed controversy in 2004 saw Maori claims under the Treaty of Waitangi clash with the idea that ‘a holiday at the beach’ was an integral part of the New Zealand lifestyle that was under threat as a result of Maori ‘special rights’. Likewise the Maori-specific seats in the New Zealand Parliament are seen as a legal sanctioning of an unfairly separatist party found on illegitimate claims of ethnicity and not as they should be, as the only avenue for actual self-determined representation available to Maori in New Zealand. (In these two sentences I make more value judgements than Jerry Falwell did in his whole life. I’m happy to defend them, should any one wish to challenge my ‘limp-wristed hand-wringing PC-view’) These are just examples of a wider clash of principles between indigenous Maori and a settler society, tentatively forging a new identity for itself. As I have shown throughout my essay, this ‘Kiwi’ culture is the child of confused and contradictory expressions of civic nationalism, and the slow erosion of New Zealanders ethnic ties to the origin countries of their ancestors. Regardless of its foundations however, a recognition of the Crowns obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to strengthen Maori culture is often seen as a direct weakening of this idea of ‘being Kiwi.’ ( I sort of gave up here, and introduced the term Kiwi without fully defining it. But think of ‘Kiwi’ in terms of stuff like L&P, sauce in a tomato shaped bottle and other kitchsy stuff like that. To be a Kiwi, it must be necessary that you support the All Blacks, drink a dozen Steinlager, and beat up the successful kid. One day I will write a post that compares the McDonalds Kiwiburger to Satan. Then you’ll see what I mean.)

This essay has offered an overtly negative assessment of the state of New Zealand nationalism. Its civic nationalism fails to define a set of national symbols and stories that promote a logical clear structure for an imagined community; its ethnic nationalism is based on a historical bond of cringing over New Zealand culture and a cultural nationalism where Maori and Pakeha remain ideological poles apart. But despite my pessimistic tone, there remains cause for optimism. There is, has always been, and will continue to be loyalty to the idea of ‘New Zealand’. (Hardly optimistic, its kinda like saying to the kid who got bullied at school ‘well, at least those bullies aren’t calling the mere fact of your existence into question’) A communal sense of pride has always been felt by New Zealanders in the achievements of its people on the world stage. (And a communal sense of ‘lets-beat-the-wife’ during All Black World Cup fails) And in the vast majority of cases, Maori-Pakeha tension is not based on racism, but on an awkward misunderstanding of values. The underlying principle of the emerging idea of ‘Kiwi’ is to be seen as good-hearted, practical, commonsensical and tolerant. (This was a fucking cop-out, show me a person who wants to be seen as bad-hearted or intolerant. The whole problem with the idea of Kiwi-ness is that it claims that New Zealanders that aren’t singing from the Gospel according to Murray Mexted, going to the beach, wearing jandals and eating hot chips in white bread aren’t really NZ’rs at all. It’s inherently intolerant. I have no idea why I wrote that sentence in my essay. It makes no sense, and undermines my entire argument. I blame it on a second class education in the NZ public schools system.) There remains a continuing willingness by both Maori and the descendants of colonisers to work together. New Zealand is a nation facing serious questions about where it has come from and where it is going. Happily, these are questions that New Zealand’s national spirit has the strength to confront and answer. And when they are confronted, the bonds of New Zealand nationhood can only grow stronger. (and they shall sing from the heavens, HALLELUJAH!)

Alex