Carolyn Stirling. “Biculturalism in New Zealand Secondary Schools.”
Carolyn Stirling. “Biculturalism in New Zealand Secondary Schools.” In Progress Conference Paper, Massey University, 2003.
(all text in bullet points are exerts from the paper)
This paper was written by a MFA student of Massy University and even though it is strongly based in education, the address to Bi and Multicultralism is very valid and helpful to my research:
The research examined year 12 (sixth-form) students’ attitudes & knowledge about biculturalism as it currently operates in New Zealand.
Whilst the responses to some of the interview questions show evidence that students are engaging with bicultural & multicultural discourses, embedded in other responses are comments that allude to beliefs & values that are counter to the bicultural & multicultural agendas of social harmony & valuing diversity.
Culture and identity are complex concepts and become more complex when situated in government politics, educational practices, media discourses and wider New Zealand society
This paper is provocative and deliberately so. I make no apologies for this. It is important for Pakeha to critically & honestly think about our role in New Zealand society. As the dominant group, we use (and abuse) our position of power & privilege. Although this is not always true on a conscious and/or individual level, many times the interests of Pakeha collectively are prioritized at the expense of other groups (Vasil, 2000).
Biculturalism is a well-worn term in New Zealand (Pearson, 1990).
She conduced ‘interviews’ with the children in groups of 8-11 from 6 different schools, the children were evened out in age (within a middle school) and ethnicities.
Childrens responses:
Maori culture is often tokenized, as show by some students’ lack of understanding of why protocols & traditions are practiced. Maori were situated as a traditional or historic culture that has no relevance to today.
As the culture of the dominant group is normalized in society and is the culture of our society, identity is not a crucial issue, as to be Pakeha is to be ‘normal’.
Students’ misconceptions and misunderstandings of the term Pakeha (e.g. Pakeha means white pig or white flea) has led some students to reject the label (Ranford, 2002: Dooley, 2003). The rejection of the term Pakeha leaves few other options (European, New Zealand European, New Zealander, Kiwi) which are also problematic as either irrelevant or assimilative.
‘I’m not European’ For some students, the ties back to Europe are weak or no-existent. Europe is a vast continent with a diverse range of cultures. European is imprecise as it could refer to anywhere between Greenland & Turkey, Finland and Spain, and thus is problematic as a term of identity (as is the term Asian for the same reasons).
‘Pakeha don’t’ have a culture’ The culture of the dominant group, through its use as the ‘everyday’, ‘normal way’ of doing things, has become invisibilised. As Roediger (1994 in Spoonley 2002) states to ignore white ethnicity is to redouble its hegemony by naturalising it. The pervasiveness and prevalence of Pakeha culture as ‘normal’ invisibalises Pakeha through normalization, just as air appears odourless and water tasteless. For one to be bicultural, that is comfortable in two cultures, one must first know their own culture. The greatest hurdle in achieving biculturalism in New Zealand is the lack of awareness and understanding of Pakeha culture
‘Biculturalism means two, multiculturalism means more than two’ This simplistic definition of biculturalism and multiculturalism is satisfactory as a rudimentary definition, however this shows little understanding of the deeper philosophical issues that underpin these complex concepts.
‘New Zealand is multicultural because of all the different cultures here’ Whilst on the surface this may appear to be true, this statement negates some crucial points. The tangata whenua status of Maori, their indigeneity to New Zealand is unique. Unlike any other ethnic group in New Zealand, Maori have no homeland to return to where their language and culture is still practiced. The Treaty of Waitangi, signed between Maori and the Crown entitles Pakeha to reside in New Zealand on the condition that the obligations contained within the Treaty are meet. This is yet to happen. However, Pakeha still claim residency status in New Zealand and as numeric majority are the dominant power-holders. The founding document of New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi, enshrines biculturalism as the relationship between Maori & Pakeha. To claim that New Zealand is, could or should be multicultural is to negate the Treaty of Waitangi and the tangata whenua status of Maori.
Multiculturalism can be (and is) used to do nothing by focusing on plurality and diversity, while neglecting to address issues of racial oppression, inequality and exploitation (Spoonley, 1998: Seuffert, 2003).
‘Biculturalism is a Maori thing’ While the origins of the perception that ‘biculturalism in a Maori thing’ are likely to have emerged in the 1970s and 1980s and the pro-bicultural arguments of many Maori academics and activists, the inference that biculturalism is not a ‘Pakeha thing’ has serious implications and consequences. For Pakeha to feel excluded from or deliberately position themselves as not a partner in biculturalism effectively forestalls any effective bicultural working relationship, and thus negates all the associated responsibilities as a signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi and power-holder in New Zealand society.
‘Biculturalism is/isn’t important’ The question ‘do you think biculturalism is important in New Zealand at this time’ created emphatic replies and heated debates. Students were split (almost 50/50) on whether they personally perceived biculturalism to be important, with students taking one of the previous arguments; either biculturalism is important because it will create better (warm, fuzzy) relationships between Maori and Pakeha or that biculturalism is not important because New Zealand is a multicultural society and this must take precedence. Thus the results regarding the question whether biculturalism is important in New Zealand at this time are inconclusive.
The way that anything Maori is seen as bicultural (as everything Pakeha is seen as normal) is concerning.
In conclusion I wish to refer back to a question raised in the abstract; to what degree can New Zealand claim to be bicultural and where does this situate us in terms of multicultural discourses? Using this previously discussed research as evidence, I would argue that New Zealand’s claim to biculturalism is superficial.
New Zealand society is aware of biculturalism sufficiently for it to become a part of our national identity in the combining elements of Maori and Pakeha culture in national ‘Kiwiana’ culture. The use of haka, hangi, harakeke, poi & moko alongside buzy bees, hokeypokey, pavlova, gumboots supports this assertion that biculturalism is a part of our national psyche.
Biculturalism can be considered a stepping stone towards multiculturalism.
As partners to the Treaty of Waitangi, the dominant group in New Zealand society and thus the power-holders, Pakeha have ethical & moral obligations to ensuring the continuing development of biculturalism so effective, equitable relationships between Maori and Pakeha can be established.
This paper has been one of the most helpful in ways for me to understand the cultural differences in New Zealand and how they are perceived and treated in this country. It was also a great source of further readings (which I found in its reference list).
