The Thin Brown Line: Re-Indigenizing Inequality in Aotearoa New Zealand
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE THIN BROWN LINE: RE-INDIGENIZING INEQUALITY IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Tahu H. Kukutai March 2010 © 2010 by Tahu Hera Kukutai. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/tq304jg1927 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. C. Snipp, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Monica McDermott I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Chris Cunningham Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii ABSTRACT This study critically examines inequality within New Zealand‟s indigenous Māori population. Specifically it asks whether strong ties to Māori identity incur higher socio- economic costs. Historical expository analysis is undertaken in concert with statistical analyses of data from the New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings (1996, 2001, 2006), and a longitudinal study of Māori households. I find strong evidence of ethnic and socio-economic segmentation within the Māori population. In each census, individuals identified exclusively as Māori by ethnicity are the most disadvantaged across a wide range of socio-economic indicators. Those identified as Māori solely by ancestry are the least disadvantaged. Pronounced differences in Māori language ability and intra-Māori partnering are also evident, indicating that the association between Māori identification and disadvantage may be partially explained by ties to Māori identity. Regression analyses of multi-wave survey data reveal a complex set of relationships. Changing patterns of identification suggest self-designation as a Māori is best conceived as a fluid, contingent process rather than a stable, individual trait. Māori identification is generally a less salient predictor of disadvantage than specific ties to Māori identity, expressed through network ties, language, and practices. However, while some ties to Māori identity appear to incur high socio- economic costs, other ties are inconsequential, or advantageous. Taken together, the analyses contribute new insights into patterns of inequality between Māori, and highlight the need for more careful theorizing and interpretation of ethnicity variables in empirical analysis. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Whaia e koe ki te iti kahurangi; ki te tuohu koe, me maunga teitei Seek the treasure you value most dearly: if you bow your head, let it be to a lofty mountain As a graduate student at Stanford, I have been very fortunate to learn from some of the finest minds, and nicest people, in the field of sociology. My advisor C. Matthew Snipp is foremost among them. Matt was the main reason I came to Stanford. I was impressed and inspired by his pioneering work on American Indians, and eager to work with another indigenous demographer. It was an excellent decision. Matt has asked difficult questions, dispensed practical advice, shared witty anecdotes, and tried (not always successfully) to deter me from diving into multiple projects. My future students will profit enormously from his mantra: “The best dissertation is a completed one.” I have also benefitted from the advice and assistance of many other professors, and I owe a special thanks to Monica McDermott, Michael Rosenfeld, Larry Bobo, Susan Olzak, Ann Morning, and Carolyn Liebler. Along with Matt, all have contributed to the evolution of my thinking on race, ethnicity, indigeneity, and inequality. There are many people in New Zealand who helped me embark on the dissertation journey; last the distance; and charge across the finish line. My mentors, now friends and colleagues, at the University of Waikato‟s Population Studies Centre, encouraged me to set my sights high. Special gratitude is reserved for Ian Pool who still surprises me with his enthusiasm and quirkiness. I am also very grateful to the Te Hoe Nuku Roa team - Sir Mason Durie, Chris Cunningham, Eljon Fitzgerald, and Brendan Stevenson – who supported my visits and patiently tolerated my endless questions (especially Brendan – thankyou!). I also received a great deal of assistance from Robert Didham, self-identified demographer/geographer/buddhologist at Statistics New Zealand. Stimulating conversations with Robert and others, including Victor Thompson, Melinda Webber, Elana Curtis, Paul Callister, and my mother-in-law Jennifer Plane-Te Paa, all influenced this dissertation in some way. Living a cerebral existence inevitably produces brain-strain and my Stanford mates kept me grounded and in good spirits. Thankyou to Alex, Victor, Emily, Andrew, Curtiss, Lynny, Maria-Elena, Irena, Anna, Dave, Mia, Duncan, Hiroko, Ali, and Ness, as well as to my long- time girlfriends Lisa, Tones, Cindy, Gina, Emma, and Jen. v Lastly, most importantly, I have my whānau to thank. My debt to my parents, Lorraine and Karu, is immeasurable. They taught me to always believe in the possibilities; to embrace life‟s challenges; and to have a good laugh along the way. My fantastic siblings, Arama and Hinu, have cheered me on, providing fancy dinners and aromatherapy massages, respectively, when they were most needed. My husband‟s grandmother, Zita, has been a savior. She has generously and lovingly cared for our daughter Reitu on numerous occasions, allowing me precious time to work on this dissertation. I am also indebted to my cousin Trina who has kept the home fires burning so that the rest of us may stay connected to our past, and to our future. My deepest gratitude is reserved for my husband Terri. Without him, none of this would have been possible. As an officer of the law he is relieved that, like double jeopardy, a PhD in sociology can only be pursued once. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………….... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………. vii LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………… ix LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………….. xiii 1. THE POLITICS OF ETHNIC AND RACIAL DISADVANTAGE ……… 1 1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Definitions …………………………………………………………………….. 5 1.3 New Zealand: A Brief Background …………………………………………... 7 1.4 The Social and Statistical Significance of Ethnicity ………………………….. 10 1.5 Is Māori Ethnicity a Significant Predictor of Disadvantage? …………………. 13 1.6 Disadvantage Between Māori: A Sub-group Problem? ……………………….. 17 1.7 Study Outline ………………………………………………………………….. 20 2. THEORIZING ETHNICITY AND INEQUALITY ……………………….. 22 2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 22 2.2 Assimilation Theories: The Declining Significance of Ethnicity ……………... 22 2.3 Pluralism Theories: The Enduring Salience of Ethnicity ……………………… 28 2.4 Inverting the “Host” ………………………………………………………........ 32 2.5 A Framework for Theorizing Māori Ethnicity and Disadvantage …………….. 36 3. RACE, ETHNICTY, AND THE MERCURIAL MĀORI SUBJECT …….. 42 3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 42 3.2 Assimilating Māori: 1840 to 1944 …………………………………………..... 43 3.3 Integrating Māori: 1945 to 1974 ………………………………………………. 56 3.4 Rejuvenating Māori:1975 to 2000 ……………………………………………... 61 3.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 71 4. INTRA- MĀORI INEQUALITY: A CORE-PERIPHERY MODEL …….. 73 4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 73 4.2 Moving From Interethnic to Intra-Māori Inequality ………………………….. 74 4.3 Data and Methods …………………………………………………………….. 77 4.4 Hypotheses …………………………………………………………………….. 85 4.5 Māori Sub-group Categories in the Census …………………………………… 86 vii 4.6 Demographic Structures ……………………………………………………… 87 4.7 Ethnic Context ……………………………………………………………….. 90 4.8 Ties to Māori Identity ………………………………………………………… 91 4.9 Socio-economic Outcomes …………………………………………………… 94 4.10 The Mediating Effect of Ethnic Context ……………………………………… 101 4.11 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 104 5. INTRA- MĀORI INEQUALITY: A MICRO-LEVEL MODEL …………. 107 5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 107 5.2 Te Hoe Nuku Roa Survey ……………………………………………………... 108 5.3 Methods ……………………………………………………………………….. 114 5.4 Variables ………………………………………………………………………. 116 5.5 Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………………. 121 5.6 Bivariate Analysis By Preferred Ethnic Label ………………………………… 122 5.7 Self-Identification or Ties: Which Matters Most? …………………………….. 128 5.8 Does Stable Self-Identification Matter? ………………………………………. 140 5.9 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 151 6. WHERE TO THE THIN BROWN LINE? ………………………………… 153 6.1 Revisiting the Key Issues ……………..……………………………………… 153 6.2 What Does Self-Identification Tell Us about Individual Ethnicity? ………… 158 6.3 Intra-Māori Inequality: An Ethnic Problem? ……………………………….. 161 6.4 The Relevance of