Public Address - Club Politique (Home)

Pluralism | Apr 05, 2005 10:24

As befitting my self-appointed role of 'public intellectual' in the style of John Ralston Saul, or even Simon Upton, let's get to talking about the role of biculturalism in New Zealand politics.

One of the things that I harped on about during my studies was the interesting way in which New Zealand and Australia each adopted an entirely different to the problem of population diversity. As the last few posts have noted, Australia was a world pioneer in the use of a particular kind of liberal approach to diversity that actively sought to include any migrant under a broad program of nation-building. Thing is, New Zealand was having to adjust the old styles of nation-building at exactly the same time, the much-vaulted social liberalisation of the mid-Twentieth Century, but chose a different tack that has had a hugely different social outcome.

In turn, during the study I made oblique references to Canada, which also adopted multiculturalism, but of yet another approach centred on federalism and the rights of the Quebecois. I'll admit that my understanding of Canadian politics borders on woeful, but my understanding will grow if I ever get that elusive post-Doctoral Fellowship. We shall see.

Anyhow, New Zealand and Australia. What characterises Australian multiculturalism is that it enforces a tolerance of social difference between migrants and dinkum Aussies, and uses a live and let live approach with assimilatory undertones. It's the old, 'Con is a Greek but his kids will be Aussies' approach. And the statistics support the method, the third generation children of migrants are essentially monolingual Anglophonic Ockers.

In regard to migrants, New Zealand uses exactly the same method the Aussies pioneered back in the 1970s. But, during this same period a new approach was being road-tested here that IMHO really reached its zenith in the debate over iwi service delivery in the late 1980s, and was the main drive behind the deliberation that gave us the still operating Treaty Settlement policies.

Ignoring the personal judgements about whether or not you like the idea of Treaty settlements, or the use of iwi to delivery services, when you look at the justifications for this type of bicultural policy it appears both similar to, and different from, migrant multiculturalism. First of all, it doesn't require the minority to change. Migrant multiculturalism is all about transforming resident aliens into culturally authentic nationals, biculturalism does not. Second, it does require the majority to adopt or at very least 'reflect' an absolute minimum of minority culture and language. This suggests that the transformation occurs within the majority, something beyond the pale in Australia. Really, all the two approaches have in common the requirement that the majority tolerate a culturally diverse population.

The most succinct description of the bicultural system I've read was outlined by Andrew Sharp in a chapter of a book called Antipodean Practices. In a nutshell, be argues that there's three ways for the average cracker to handle biculturalism. You can either take it on wholesale, learn Te Reo, wear a big pounamu, act all 'right on' and talk about 'how you have friends who are polynesian, so you really relate to Bro'Town'. Or, you can swing to the other end of the spectrum, wear your black singlet and Stubbies, demand that any reference to the Treaty be struck from the record, and hark back in your mind to the days when 'the bloody Maoris' didn't get all 'uppity' (and neither did those bloody sheilas...). Alternatively, you walk the middle ground and not make a song and dance about things you're not a part of.

OK, so Sharp was a little more conservative in his description, but the meaning was there. The way I see it, if you're not part of Maori society, and are in fact a big old white (wo)man, you can either choose to get involved up to the level of your own comfort zone, or don't.

What you don't get to do is make value judgements about the worth of Maori society and whether it gets to stay a feature of the New Zealand landscape. And this isn't a question of being PC or precious about Maori society. It is a statement that if you aren't part of something you do not get to call any shots. I can make all the demands I want about the way Christians should behave in public, and the things they say, but they don't have to listen to me, if not only because I am an outsider.

What this establishes is a clear delineation between majority and minority that doesn't exist in Australian multiculturalism. Essentially, migrants are considered part of the majority who haven't grown into citizenship yet, a bit like kids who have to be guided into 'proper' social behaviour. New Zealand biculturalism differs from this approach because the majority-minority dynamic is entirely different, and far, far less paternalistic. Hopefully.

But the details of this interaction are another post altogether.

Digg this Scoopit!

Exexpat | Apr 04, 2005 11:44

I had a breath-taking post all written up for you all, but I reread it today and realised it was crap. That's what you get for writing on a plane after days and days of trying to get your act together and emigrate. The post was essentially 10 things I loved about Oz and will probably miss, but in retrospect I thought, what the hey, if things here turn to custard I can always go back.

Instead I'm going to bleat about how damn great the weather is here in Auckland. What the hell is with that?! Three days of sun and warmth in April? No complaining, but WTF? I had expected to depart from the 30 degrees of Melbourne and land in grey misery, but no such misfortune.

Anyhow, as I may have whined in the past, no luck finding good work in Melbourne. It's the old catch-22 of no experience, no job, no job no experience, so today finds me looking for work over here in godzone, feeling hesitant about my sudden decision to fly back and be an expat no longer, mostly intending to exploit my new-found status as an overeducated New Zealander.

To make a long story short, the decision to find a place by myself back-fired and I had to beat a hasty retreat out of my flat in Carlton. In turn, I was also forced out of my accommodation in Clayton, and was looking at either having to get into a new flat or find three or four months of temporary accommodation somewhere, till the final edit of the thesis was on the table in front of the supervisors.

In the end I just thought to get out of there and fly back to Wellington. But, as fate would have it, airfares were cheaper to Auckland, and here I am.

Since being here I already managed to have a great argument about why Auckland needs a decent, and probably fabulously expensive ratepayer-funded, light rail system, been to Richmond Rd for a really, really good short-film festival and some culture, and had some mighty tasty yum cha. It's like I never left!

And that's a good thing.

OK, housekeeping... Later this week I'll try and outline why I think NZL biculturalism is better than Aussie multiculturalism, but for now I'd like to again thank the contributors who sent in emails. Interesting stuff.

More importantly though, I'd like to make a thank you to all those people who carried me for my six years in Melbourne. To all those people who put up with the mooching, the free beds, the constant stream of complaints about how much of a fucker the thesis was (it's now faded to a mild irritation awaiting the final scratch), the whisky-fuelled nights after break-ups, the being sidelined when I was in relationships, and to the constant demands for better hours and more money (that means you La Luna), to the housemates who had to endure endless ranting at the TV news, to the flatmates who had to endure grumpiness and the tyrannical demands for regular and predictable sleep hours, to the girlfriends I lambasted with starry-eyed lectures on boring points of political philosophy, to the friends who made me simple dinners when I couldn't make rent, to the family I neglected by staying overseas, to the people like Chris Tremewan at Auckland University and Russell Brown here at publicaddress who gave me those little opportunities to show what a freaky brat out of a state house can do with a little leeway (even if my column STILL doesn't rate as high as Cracker...), to the endlessly patient supervisors who read my thought again, and again, and again, to the people I constantly pestered for information and interviews, to the banks who have no idea how much shuffling of cash I did to maintain a nearly-zero interest-rate regime over the years.

To all of you, thank you. It goes to show, no man is an island.

Though sometimes he can fight to be a bridge for others to a higher place.

Digg this Scoopit!