Island Life: My way or the highway
58 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
merc,
Oh I dunno, I ascribe to a sort of, no matter where you go, there you are, ideal. I idealize my other homelands just as much as here. But that's what they are these idealised feelings...idealised feelings, to quote a poet,
I live in a land
inner land
ambivalent.I just get tired of certain people trying to draw me out on what makes me feel like a NZer, sort of a Toyota ad, research company feel to it, do you mind if we ask you a few questions...yeah I do actually, I just don't feel the craven need to tell you really, read my books, buy my product, agree with me, I need some more material for next book, blog sell... if the land thing spins your wheels, cool, to quote another (zen) poet,
Look where you travel
the same sky. -
from an academic perspective, a slogan like "the australian battler", "the mainstream" or "the kiwi way" are just ways to define the speakers perspective of "the nation".
so to Key, "the kiwi way" is his particular ideal new zealand. there's nothing incipid about it, because nation-building is *always* future-focussed. i've tried to define it before as being like standing in a field and looking both forward and back (nairns famously calls nation-building janus-faced, because it looks in two directions at once).
the forward looking part of nation-building picks a point on the horizon to work towards, but that point is meaningless without reference to the place you've come from (hence Key's mention of his past)
the drama with nation-building is that while Key might be looking to a place he wants to guide the nation, there's 4 million other perspectives on where that point should be, all of them competing, complaining, shouting, and nodding assent at the same time.
welcome to democracy.
-
slightly off thread, but how is this extraordinary statement from the Dom Post's sycophantic editorial about Key's speech
" Whatever the case National can only benefit from reframing its policies in terms that are less threatening to middle New Zealand. The trick will be to re-assure the party faithful that Natonal is still committed to notions like individual responsibility and the belief that the State can't and shouldn't do everything"
that's right the Dom is actually encouraging Key to lie, and spin his way to victory. We all know framing issues is part of the game, but I thought newspapers didn't like those kind of tricks....
-
Ooh, that's a bit harsh. If you read the full essay (the introduction to Great New Zealand Argument), I've cited evidence for the idea ... I think it's a valid observation
You're right, I should read your full essay before engaging in any more depth with the argument. It's certainly a valid argument that it's a thread that has run through our art and literature, but is that still the case?
Michael King and Keith Sinclair have made similar observations in more graceful prose than mine.
King's and Sinclair's formative years are a generation or two past now, and while NZ hasn't urbanised all that much more since then, the notion that we're essentially a rural people is becoming more and more of a myth. Myths, of course, have their own very deep reality, but is that a reality that we can or should hold onto when an "idealised feeling for the land" manifests itself through chopping that land up into quarter-acre blocks and paving the rest of it so that we can drive there?
attachment to the land is a recognised theme in our arts and literature
It's certainly a theme, and a strong one at that, but again, does it still apply as strongly today? There was, of course, the cultural nationalism movement at the middle of last century (McCahon, Curnow et al) which was a necessary stage to distance ourselves from the colonial centre, and that still features as a stereotype of what "NZ art" is or should be about. But hasn't recent cultural and artistic practice been more plural, more urban and more international than that? I started writing in the wake of people like Leigh Davis, and the idea of a poetry that engaged with global ideas and urban themes resonated far more with me than any amount of Brian Turner grizzled mountain-man crypto-spirituality.
Merc: I just get tired of certain people trying to draw me out on what makes me feel like a NZer, sort of a Toyota ad, research company feel to it
That's exactly the way I feel about it, and I'm sorry if my initial comment sounded harsh, Russell, but it's phrases like "a core part of what it is to be a New Zealander of whatever heritage" (from your comment, of course, not the full essay, so it may be a straw man) that rankle with me and make me feel excluded.
It's interesting that you mention the experience of ex-pats, because it reminds me of the couple of years I spent overseas a little while back. NZers asked me whether I missed all those big open spaces back home, and I had to answer no. The only thing that made me homesick was when flicking through a Soho record shop I came across Fat Freddy's Drop's "Live at the Matterhorn" CD. Not because I was a big Freddy's fan, but because it had a picture of the Bucket Fountain on it. It was that particular built environment that resonated with me: the streets, buildings, street art, bars and people that I missed (that, and decent coffee and roti chenai), not "land, sea and sky".
So, I guess I'm not a real kiwi. So, I'd agree that your definition has a lot of truth behind it, but I'd venture to say that while it's an accurate definition of what a NZer was, it doesn't fully describe what NZers (significant plural) are or will be. In the 1950s Pakeha needed a "New Zealand identity" in the arts, something to say that they weren't just English people lost on some distant islands. Perhaps what we need now is an understanding of the plethora of national identities that are now emerging.
-
On the other hand, 81st Column, you seem to be ruling cultural diversity out of your own definitions. What are these "cultural values that act against nationhood"?
Sorry- my bad, I was really struggling to get round value laden terms like ghetto etc. Perhaps I should put it from my own rather more naive perspective. I don't get the need to be either immigrant or expatriate and recreate what has been left behind. It seems counter-productive and disrespectful to my hosts.
I might add that I still struggle with useful concepts of culture perhaps because with the exception of a Wales I've never stayed in one place long enough to integrate fully with the culture.
In this context it just doesn't make sense to me to have anyone say this is what you have to accept in order to be an X. This quickly comes down to semantics. If I understood his point correctly I think Che makes a useful distinction between the goals of a nation and setting out identity on an I am you aren't basis.
-
Myths, of course, have their own very deep reality, but is that a reality that we can or should hold onto when an "idealised feeling for the land" manifests itself through chopping that land up into quarter-acre blocks and paving the rest of it so that we can drive there?
I think King was right when he identified the emergence of the environmental movement as part of a developing sense of nationhood. For decades we didn't have that sense of duty - we treated the hinterlands of our towns and cities like rubbish tips. (People who bitch about the RMA tend to forget that.)
I guess there's a difference between something people feel and something they're expected to sign up to. And I don't think it's culturally exclusive. If you go to Muriwai, you'll always see Chinese and Indian families walking the beach, which makes me feel good (although some of them need to embrace more practical attire ...).
And doing a story for the Listener on New Zealand's technological future last year brought it home to me how much our economic future is tied up in living with the land and sea, from energy to future biomaterials.
So I guess it makes sense to me. And given our historical indifference to churchgoing (even compared to Australia) it also seems relevant to any New Zealand spirituality. Which is where we started with the "paganus" idea ...
-
yeah, the difference between the RB and the Tom Beard comments on NZ identity illustrate my point well. both are completely valid interpretations, and if you imagine a process where Tom sells his idea as one that everyone should share, then you have one nation-building conversation (and vice-versa).
national stories of this type change intergenerationally, with the popularity of the story determining how much it sticks in the nation's memory.
as an example the farming story (or myth) was so popular that it's pretty firmly stuck in there, and will probably take a while to work it's way out.
but in regard to landscapes, a couple of christmas' ago i was sent a dvd compilation of nzl music videos. i was in oz at the time, and what struck me was how many of these videos included big south island vista. that and how out of place a bunch of PI looked, on a farm, wearing toweling hats (Che Fu video).
-
I think King was right when he identified the emergence of the environmental movement as part of a developing sense of nationhood.
True. But there are also different strands of environmentalism, with different levels of emotional attachment to the land. There's the stereotypical hippy who wants to live self-sufficently in the midst of nature. Then there's what you could call the "urban greenie", who cares for the future of the planet, but doesn't necessarily have any desire to be among "nature" on a daily basis and sees the best hope for a sustainable future in compact cities with good public transport. That'll be me, then.
But I think there's a big, strand of New Zealanders who would claim to have an attachment to the land, and to "clean green NZ", but whose actions are anything but sustainable. Your stereotypical kiwi blokes and sheilas love the outdoors, and want to be a part of it. Thus, they have a big section in the suburbs or a lifestyle block, with a ride-on mower and a V8 for the drive to work. They'll tow their powerboat behind their SUV every weekend so they can enjoy nature by shooting it or catching it on the end of a line. They may even own a bike, but they'll strap them on the back of a Holden and drive to a mountain so they can ride down it, but they wouldn't dream of riding it to work. And they'll look at the central city and sneer at a new apartment block going up, saying "mate, how can you live amid all that concrete rather than in the healthy green open spaces?", without thinking that the apartment-dweller's ecological footprint would be a fraction of their own.
So, I've just admitted that a big chunk of NZ do have this sort of "attachment to the land", which seems to contradict my point. But I don't think it's as dominant as it was, and my fervent hope is that reality (in the form of oil prices and global warming), together with a steady inflow of people who don't have an allergic reaction to urbanity, will gradually change those attitudes.
The "paganus" idea, when translated into ture ecological awareness and action, could be a powerful force for good. But all too often it gets co-opted into the sort of "quarter-acre paradise" vision that helps sell McMansions and SUVs to a populace that claims to love the land while gradually killing it. Rather than promoting an attachment to "land sea & sky", perhaps we should respect the land sea & sky by leaving it alone, and instead celebrate a growing attachment to "place, life & people".
-
I didn't have much of a problem with the content of the JK speech (John Howard lite), but jeez, can't the best speech-writers that the Nats have to offer come up with something a little catchier than 'The Kiwi Way'?
(Shrug) 'Its just the Kiwi Way, innit'.
Sounds less like a description of national identity/aspiration and more of an excuse.
-
tom, that visit to ten-buck-an-hour tauranga profoundly effected you, methinks.
speaking of quarter-acre hell of endless people-hostile subdivisions:
http://wellurban.blogspot.com/2007/01/great-place-to-live-if-youre-kiwifruit.html
-
Tom: it's phrases like "a core part of what it is to be a New Zealander of whatever heritage" (from your comment, of course, not the full essay, so it may be a straw man) that rankle with me and make me feel excluded.
Yeah, but the label could be a lot worse. Reading Grant's quote from the DomPost, I would hate someone to identify me as being part of something called, "middle New Zealand"!
In terms of the speech, aren't we simply expressing distrust about the use of good old nationalism for political purposes? The "trick" for politicians is to make us identify with a common cause, group or "nation" and then have us identify with them as the leaders of that 'apple pie' cause. Nationalism has positive as well as negative characteristics, such as getting us to pull together to make things better in a social, cultural or economic sense. But the characteristic we fear is a negative one - that nationalism will eventually be used to exclude or persecute some group that doesn't fit the identity. This is where Brash's term, "mainstream New Zealander" seemed divisive and unsatisfactory from the start. Key's "Kiwi way" is softer, but the fear's still there. If you try to define "underclass" you will find certain groups are over-represented in it (besides those with no money). What are the preconditions for them to belong to the true way?
In reality there are many "ways" or nations in New Zealand, some more populous or powerful than others. I'm not a great fan of the 8 tribes thing but I wouldn't say we have as many perspectives as Che's four million in a meaningful sense. So I'd go for a number somewhere between 8 and 4,000,000!
More so than in the past, we do live in a multicultural society and the challenge for politicians now is how to convince different groups that their needs are going to be represented in decision making. In a world with blogs and video cameras, they can no longer get away with saying one thing to one group and something contradictory to a second group. This is where Brash really got it wrong again with his refusal to accept there might be Maori perspectives on issues such as health, legitimising spending money in a different way. Govt policies need to be flexible and sophisticated enough to incorporate the differences. As everyone's saying, we'll have no idea what National's new leader really means until we see the policies.
-
tom, that visit to ten-buck-an-hour tauranga profoundly effected you, methinks
It certainly made me appreciate Wellington even more! But I spent 14 years in the 'burbs of Christchurch, and if it hadn't been for the proximity of the university and the fact that it was possible to cycle into town I'd have gone mad(der) long ago. Going back there now and seeing the subdivisions spreading across the plains (no doubt to Hugh Pavletich's endless delight and profit) sends shudders down my spine.
Not that Greater Wellington is completely immune. I've spent far too long at in-laws' places in Whitby to believe that. I'm sure they believe that they're in touch with nature: after all, look at all the golf courses! And then they grumble that the roads aren't big enough...
-
Yeah, but the label could be a lot worse. Reading Grant's quote from the DomPost, I would hate someone to identify me as being part of something called, "middle New Zealand"!
Shudder! I guess that was part of Brash's mistake: he didn't realise that there's a considerable slice of the population to whom the word "mainstream" is a term of abuse.
Getting back to the main point, the reason I've harped on about suburbanism and "the Kiwi Way" is that I've heard from a very reliable source that National's "policy in waiting" on the environment includes a proposal to scrap all limits on urban development. Combine that with Key's misty-eyed memories of looking at a neighbour's house "where the fridge was full and there was a car in the garage" and I really don't get the feeling that his "kiwi way" includes plans for sustainable urban growth and quality public transport.
-
merc,
I love suburbia.
-
I love suburbia.
careful, thems fightin' words.
-
merc,
Hehe, I was born in Tauranga, lived at the Mount. One day I found myself living in Mangere (East), then I escaped, or thought I did and went the whole world over doing the strangest things, all to escape NZ suburbia.
Now I live in one again (red pavement, dead give-away). There's an old seminary saying (apparently), "Who gets to God faster, the priest who loves God, or the priest who hates Him? Answer, the one who hates God, he thinks about Him more...
Often what we rail against says more about us than what we support, don't you think? -
Tom,
If the 'Kiwi Way' of the future features unrestricted urban development, won't that mean more diversity rather than less?
Assuming that urban sprawl is unsustainable economically and environmentally, and that forecasted population growth in NZ does in fact happen, won't urban development change to reflect the needs of a changing community, rather than a political will to return to the 1950's?
I guess my question is, who decides what the Kiwi Way is?
-
richard, i think i can channel tom... waitaminute... here it is....
OHMYGODAREYOUJUSTPLAINCRAZY!!!!
(just kidding)
the abiding feature of urban sprawl is uniformity... acres, and acres of uniformity. strangely, diversity comes from getting up close to people.
tom?
-
More so than in the past, we do live in a multicultural society and the challenge for politicians now is how to convince different groups that their needs are going to be represented in decision making.
Recognising the power and timeliness of that idea helped Labour squeak home in last year's election - and completely missing it helped National lose Auckland.
Just quietly, one of the things Clark did after returning to work after the election was to commission a report into the political implications of our growing diversity. Key's speech, with its assimilationist undertones, suggests that National still doesn't quite get it.
-
merc,
What's to get, the hardest job Kaizen Key Way National have is to convince caring people that they arn't just in this for the money.
It's not about the power! Man, I've had enough of them already, I keep wondering when Mayor Quimby is going to pop out. -
I keep wondering when Mayor Quimby is going to pop out.
I propose this for a meme.
-
merc,
Ooh no, from wikipedia (meme),
Meme-theorists contend that memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes which replicate the most effectively spread best; which allows for the possibility that successful memes might prove detrimental to their hosts. -
Che/Tom
Well, just a little crazy....
But what I was trying to say is, yep I think I have a bit of an idea what urban sprawl is, but surely it cannot (and will not) continue indefinately, for a whole bunch of good economic and environmental reasons, and that smart developers will (and some already do) recognise this.
If that (admittedly long bow) is right, then surely the longterm future of unrestricted urban development is the opposite of sprawl/uniformity. Ergo, diversity and intensity.
Ergo, a bunch of different views in the future on what constitutes the 'Kiwi Way'.
Or is this just wishful thinking?
-
It wouldn't be too hard to start a John Key/Mayor Quimby meme, with a little bit of guerilla advertising. If someone wants to photoshop up a suitable graphic...
Not that I'd ever suggest such a thing as political activism in polite society.
-
Tom's comments yesterday had near the end
But all too often it gets co-opted into the sort of "quarter-acre paradise" vision that helps sell McMansions and SUVs to a populace that claims to love the land while gradually killing it.
As someone who moved to NZ thirteen years ago and has never been able to shake off his amazement (and horror) at the difference between the propaganda that NZ very successfully spreads overseas and the reality here at home, this quote really does sum things up for me. I have come across a few people who are prepared to admit that if, say, Europeans lived like most people here do, Europe would be an environmental mess, but most seem to deny what their eyes tell them, if they'd only look around. It's like we've come to believe our own propaganda---not a good move!
I'd also say that attachment to the land, sky and sea is in no way a defining "kiwi" characteristic---being attached to this section of LSS might well be, but I still, after all these years, get a shiver whenever I see "my" special bit of LSS where I was born and brought up, and I never, never get over the feeling of missing it deep down inside---and I don't suppose I ever will.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.