History and Identity: A system of checks and balances for

Aotearoa/New ZealandDr. James H. Liu

Centre for Applied Cross Cultural Research

School of Psychology

Victoria University of Wellington

A Psychology of Social Identity• According to Tajfel & Turner (1979), social

identity is that aspect of a person’s identity that pertains to their membership in groups.

• It’s basic insight is that identity is not something belonging to an individual, but is socially constructed out of an interaction between the person and the situation. In different situations, different aspects of a person’s identity become salient.

Identity Salience (Context determines Identity)

• For example, in a conference on feminism, gender may become salient, and behavior will conform to norms for gender appropriate behavior. At meetings of the United Nations security council, nationality will tend to guide behavior more than gender (though there is room for individual differences).

• According to social identity theory, behavior is qualitatively different across situations, conforming to different norms for behavior depending on identity salience.

Identity creates context

• The literature focuses on how context (or situation) activates or makes salient social identity. However, Reicher & Hopkins (2001) argue that reciprocally, social identity can create reality (or context) by defining the situation in terms of who is in the in-group and who is in the out-group, and what the in-group should be doing in this situation.

History as a Symbolic Resource for Identity

• Reicher & Hopkins’ insight is that identity is mobilized by political entrepreuners to define group boundaries in such a way as to make their own agenda that of the group.

• Liu & Hilton (in press) argue that history is an important symbolic resource that can be used to legitimize group boundaries and define an agenda. History is particularly important for “peoples”, because traditions are central to the functioning of societies.

History as a narrative for national identity

• There is a broad consensus developing across the There is a broad consensus developing across the social sciences that history is important for social sciences that history is important for constructing and maintaining the “imagined constructing and maintaining the “imagined community” of nationhood (Anderson, 1983; community” of nationhood (Anderson, 1983; Hobsbawm, 1996; Wertsch, 2002). Hobsbawm, 1996; Wertsch, 2002).

• History “confers immortality” to events and people, History “confers immortality” to events and people, by weaving them into stories with temporal form by weaving them into stories with temporal form referred to as referred to as narratives of originnarratives of origin. Empirical . Empirical research has shown broad consensus across ethnic research has shown broad consensus across ethnic and regional groups as to what events and figures and regional groups as to what events and figures constitute a nation’s history (Liu et al., 1999; 2002; constitute a nation’s history (Liu et al., 1999; 2002; Huang et al., 2004). Huang et al., 2004).

History as a narrative for identity• In national histories, the temporal sequence of

nominations follows a U shape, with recent and foundational events nominated by lay people more frequently than intermediate events in time.

• World history is overwhelmingly a story about politics and war

• History is appealing as a tool for nation building because it offers concrete events and people with widely shared emotional resonance whose relevance to the current situation is open to interpretation.

History as a story about identity• History furnishes both concreteness (widely

recognized people and events) and temporality, both of which are powerful tools in constructing narratives of identity with implications for action.

• History provides the outlines of an open-ended drama, with prescriptive roles connecting the individual to a larger collective that has evolved through time and hence confers not only symbolic immortality, but persuasive power to those who can ascribe for themselves a place in the narrative.

10 MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS IN NEW ZEALAND HISTORY ACCORDING TO GENERAL SAMPLE OF MAORI AND

PAKEHA/EUROPEANS

1. Treaty of Waitangi 54%   1. Treaty of Waitangi 69%

2. The Land Wars 35%   2. World Wars 66%

3= Maori/Polynesian Arrival 30%   3. Maori/Polynesian Arrival 41%

3= European Arrival 30%   4. European Arrival 40%

3= World Wars 30%   5. The Land Wars 35%

6 Women’s Suffrage 19%   6. Women’s Suffrage 29%

7. Colonisation 16%   7. Arrival of James Cook 28%

8= Education Act passed pro- 14%   8. Colonisation 16%

  Viding free education.     9= The Depression 14%

8= NZ becomed independent state. 14%   9= 1981 Springbok Tour 14%

8= Musket Wars between Tribes 14%        

8= NZ Government formed 14%        

  Maori (N=37)       Pakeha (N=94)  

8= 1981 Springbok Tour 14%        

10 MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS IN NEW ZEALAND HISTORY ACCORDING TO MAORI

AND PAKEHA/EUROPEAN STUDENTS

1. Treaty of Waitangi 100%   1. Treaty of Waitangi 94%

2. Land Wars 71%   2. European Arrival 67%

3. Maori Declaration of Independ. 58%   3. Land Wars 53%

4. European Arrival 54%   4. Women’s Suffrage 49%

5. Kupe’s Arrival 50%   5. World War I 48%

6. Maori Arrival 46%   6. World War II 47%

7. Maori Language Revival 33%   7. Maori Arrival 44%

8. Abel Tasman’s Voyage 24%   8. European Settlement 42%

9= Maori Land March 21%   9. Springbok Tour 24%

9= Horouta Waka Arrival 21%   10. Great Depression 18%

9= Maori Resource Payoffs 21%        

  Maori (N=24)       Pakeha (N=87)  

How well have Maori and Pakeha/Europeans honoured the Treaty of Waitangi?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Mao

ri

Pakeh

a

Respondent Ethnicity

Mean

Rati

ng

Maori Honour

Pakeha Honour

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Mao

ri

Pakeh

a

Respondent Ethnicity

Mean

Rati

ng

Maori Honour

Pakeha Honour

Student Sample General Sample

Social Representations Summary

• NZ history is represented as the coming together of two peoples—the arrival, treaty, conflict, and reconstruction of a bicultural nation. This creates a special position for these two peoples in the national identity, whereas Asians and Pacific Islanders, who constitute more than 10% of the population, do not have such a privileged position.

• The Treaty of Waitangi between Maori chieftains and the British Crown is now a hegemonic representation as the most important event in NZ history. (But for half of NZ’s history, 85 years, it was null and void). It acts as a powerful resource for legitimizing Maori claims for a greater share of NZ’s resources

Outgroup favoritism concerning the Treaty is unique to majority group NZers. Usually, it is the minority group that

lacks resources for self-identification, but in NZ it is the majority that is positioned by a consensual historical

representation.

• As a consequence, the majority group in NZ is experiencing naming problems. Usually, it is a minority that wants a name change, like homosexual->gay, or negro->black.

•  Which group(s) best describe(s) your ethnic origins (tick the appropriate box or boxes)?

• New Zealand European/Pakeha• Pacific Islander New Zealand Maori

Other(please specify): • Asian (please specify):

Is there such a thing as “Pakeha identity”?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Mao

ri

Pak

eha

Yes

No

Maybe

Is there such a thing as “Maori identity”?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Male

Fem

ale

Mao

ri

Pakeh

a

Yes

No

Maybe

Correlates of Pakeha and NZ European

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Treaty

$$$

Prom

pt Set

tle

Settle

4 G

ood

Tr in C

onst

Sep G

ovt

Pakeha

NZ European

Correlates of Pakeha and NZ European

2

3

4

5

6

Eth ID Nat ID Auth SDO Educ

Pakeha

NZ European

Correlates for Kiwi, Pakeha, & NZ European as Self-identifier

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Pakeha

NZ European

Kiwi

History’s additive effects in NZ

• These self-identifiers are useful in predicting reactions to current events. Analysis of the seabed and foreshore submissions shows that those self-identifying as “Pakeha” were pro-claims, whereas those self-identifying as “an ordinary Nzers” were anti-claims

• Regression analyses show that the evaluation of how well Maori and Pakeha evaluate the Treaty is a significant predictor of important current issues (whether Treaty payments should be final, whether to teach Maori in schools) even after controlling for ethnicity.

Summary of History as a Resource and Constraint in New Zealand– Quantifiable

“Thick Description”• NZ History is constructed as a meeting between

Maori and Pakeha/Europeans; it gives these groups a special position in the national identity.

• Maori, as a disadvantaged minority, draw upon the representation of the Treaty to justify their claims for more resources.

• Pakeha use different strategies to deal with the “collective guilt” for having dispossessed Maori; but none of them can afford to ignore Maori.

Checks and balances?

• In many ways, Maori hold the key to a secure sense of group identity for Pakeha, as the history of interaction between these groups is central to the history of the nation. Fairness considerations, which are part of the national identity, and positive distinctiveness concerns overseas give Maori a stronger political base than most indigenous peoples.

A second narrative for NZ history

• However, there is another aspect of NZ’s history that is shared among Maori and Pakeha: a focus on the link to the mother country of Great Britain.

• The history of Western or Anglo civilization provides an alternative system of historical legitimacy for NZ. So while there is agreement about the constitution or content of NZ’s history, there is disagreement about its meaning and relevance for current political issues.

G eneral Sam ple

2

3

4

5

6

7

1000-1500

1700-1900

1900+

T im e Period

Mean

Rati

ng

New Z ealand

G reat Britain

Australia

Polynesia

2

3

4

5

6

7

1000-1500

1700-1900

1900+

T im e Period

Mean

Rati

ng

New Z ealand

G reat Britain

Australia

Polynesia

M A O R I PA K EH A

Theme of Brash’s Orewa Speech

• “And fifth, the topic I will focus on today, is the dangerous drift towards racial separatism in New Zealand, and the development of the now entrenched Treaty grievance industry. We are one country with many peoples, not simply a society of Pakeha and Maori where the minority has a birthright to the upper hand, as the Labour Government seems to believe.”

Brash at Orewa: One people=Assimilation

“So let me begin by asking, what sort of nation do we want to build?

Is it to be a modern democratic society, embodying the essential notion of one rule for all in a single nation state?

Or is it the racially divided nation, with two sets of laws, and two standards of citizenship, that the present Labour Government is moving us steadily towards?

But the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi was expressed simply by then Lt-Gov Hobson in February 1840. In his halting Maori, he said to each chief as he signed: “He iwi tahi tatou. We are one people.”

Bicultural dialogue is organized around two concepts: Biculturalism in Principle

and Resource Specific Biculturalism

• NZ Europeans support biculturalism in principle. They see the Treaty as the most important event in NZ history, and Maori as having honoured the Treaty better. They are not averse to seeing Maori symbols incorporated into the national identity.

• But they are opposed to category based allocation of resources to Maori based on ethnicity or ancestry.

Support for Biculturalism in Principle (4.89/1-7)

• Maori language should be taught in all New Zealand schools

• The New Zealand national anthem should be sung in both Maori and English.

• New Zealand should be known and seen as a bicultural society, reflecting an equal partnership between Maori and Pakeha.

• If New Zealand were to change to a republic, then the Treaty of Waitangi should be used as a foundation for our constitution.

• New Zealand should embrace it’s cultural diversity.

Opposition to Resource Specific Biculturalism (1.27/1-7)

• We are all New Zealanders, and no one ethnic group should get special privileges.

• It is racist to give one ethnic group special privileges, even if they are a minority

• I feel that although Maori have had it rough in past years, they should still be treated the same as everyone else.

• No one group should be given privileges on the basis of ethnic or racial background

• I find the idea of giving priority or special privileges to one group appalling, minority or otherwise

Is this racist (motivated by prejudice)?

The coding of bicultural criticism

• NZ Europeans would like to pay homage to biculturalism in principle, in order to verify rather than diminish their egalitarian ideals.

• To defend themselves from accusations of racism, NZ Europeans couch their criticism of Maori in terms of specific misdeeds based on a violation of egalitarian ideals and/or misuse of public resources.

History as legitimate power mobilized by opposing elites

• While there is substantial consensus around what constitutes history, there is equally substantial debate around the importance, relevance, and meaning of historical events and figures for present day politics

The anchoring hypothesis• Historical events with representational status serve

as anchors for public debate about new issues facing society, conventionalizing new information and “making familiar the unfamiliar”. Attitudes towards issues of central importance to society are embedded within, or networked to (anchored in) historical representations.

• Hence, individual differences in the perceived relevance and meaning of historical representations should be predictive of attitudes and opinion, for both political elites and the general public.

Brash at Orewa: Put the past behind us

• “Let me make it quite clear. National is absolutely committed to completing the settlement of historical grievances. We will ensure that the process is accelerated and brought to a conclusion. It must then be wound up. It is essential to put this behind us if all of us – and Maori in particular – are to stop looking backward and start moving forward into this new century as a modern, democratic and prosperous nation.”

Study two: New Zealand

Anchoring Effects of the Treaty of Waitangi for Biculturalism in Principle

Biculturalism in principle B (std. error) ΔR2 R2adjusted

Treaty of Waitangi

Step one Realistic conflict (international) .07 .12 .06

Realistic conflict (intranational) -.20 .18 -.12 .05 .02

Step two Social Dominance Orientation -.63 .15 -.54**

Right-Wing Authoritarianism .12 .14 .11 .32** .32

Step three National identity .06 .10 -.03

Ethnic identity -.03 .13 .07 .00 .30

Step two Historical importance of Treaty .22 .10 .24*

Current relevance of Treaty .19 .09 .26* .15** .43

Constant 3.34 .99* = p < .05, ** p < .001.

Resource-specific biculturalism

B (std. error) ΔR2 R2adjusted

Resource-specific biculturalism

Step one Social Dominance Orientation

.20 .13 .11

Right-Wing Authoritarianism -.17 .11 -.10 .07* .06

Step two Ethnic identity .01 .07 .01 .10* .16

Step three Collective guilt .58 .10 .52* .27* .43

Step four Historical importance of Treaty

-.11 .07 -.10

Current relevance of Treaty .28 .08 .28* .04* .46

Constant .59 .40* = p < .005.

Should NZ be bicultural, monocultural, or multicultural?

• There is tremendous debate over the future of our nation. It is triggered by an ideological dilemma where NZ Europeans acknowledge historical injustice and a bicultural narrative as central to their the national identity, but differ widely in the implications of this at both a conceptual level (in principle) and particularly in terms of resource allocations.

New Zealand: A house built on 2 pillars, Maori and Pakeha

The future of biculturalism• The principles of the Treaty need to be worked out

and articulated so that criticism that they are “badly drafted” and “undefined” will not stick.

• At VUW, for instance, the principles are embodied under one specific charter goal: --working in partnership with Maori to encourage access, participation, and awareness; (biculturalism in principle)--and the generic goals of equity of educational and employment opportunities. (need or equity rule)

The devil is in the details of resource allocation

• While few would disagree with these principles, our research has shown that NZ European students are opposed to targeted scholarships as a means of providing greater access for Maori to higher education; and whanau study groups must be open to ALL students, not just Maori.

• Resource-based biculturalism will always be contested, and a sole focus on these issues will not promote the development of biculturalism in principle

Core Issues in Biculturalism

• Egalitarianism

• Partnership (non-assimilable difference)• Equity (implementation issues; the best we can do

may be to improve procedural justice)• Inclusiveness (are Asians and Pacific islanders

more included under Biculturalism or under Liberalism?) In terms of cultural values, both are more collectivist than individualist, but Asians value work similarly to Protestants

Visioning the Future

Liberalism Biculturalism

NZ Europeans “unmarked”

Maori

Asians

PIPakeha

Pak

eha

Mao

ri

Asians

Pacific Islanders