The answer? Through compelling and culturally sensitive museum exhibitions.
Overview
In the 1980s, New Zealand was on the path of redressing its ‘difficult history’ as a settler society (Attwood 2013, p.47). Consequently, biculturalism emerged as a policy response to this changing social, economic and political context that sought to create a new national community between the Māori and Pākehā (European settlers) in a postcolonial era that ‘acknowledges past wrongs’ (Dibley 2007, p.131) and creates an equal partnership, enshrined under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi (O’Sullivan 2008, p.319). Such were the aspirations of the new National Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Henceforth, Te Papa), which opened in 1998 (Te Papa Act 1992). However, there have been criticisms surrounding the museum’s bicultural practice. Therefore, this essay has evaluated the bicultural policy implemented in Te Papa and argues that biculturalism is both evident and has its shortcomings. As such, this piece will first discuss biculturalism to understand the social, political, and economic context in which the museum emerged, followed by an evaluation of the bicultural policies in place at Te Papa.
Biculturalism
The 1980s rise of anti-colonial political activism led to Māori reassertion of their traditional culture and political autonomy (Marsh & Miller 2012, p.244). Meanwhile, the Pākehā were undergoing “a process of external disconnection from Britain” (McCarthy 2016, p.7) because Britain had entered the Common Market in 1973 (Marsh & Miller 2012, p.246). As a result, the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act was passed in 1985 to officially recognise the importance of the Treaty, which also gave the Waitangi Tribunal the capacity to investigate Māori claims of injustice and breaches of the Treaty back to 1840 (Williams 2006, para.3). Therefore, the Treaty of Waitangi was not only recognised as the basis of reconciliation but also as the constitutional origin of the nation (Attwood 2013, p.51-3). These trends ignited a desire among the Pākehā to ‘reinvent the national imagining from the colonial to the postcolonial’ (Dibley 2007, p.132). This desire would take on the form of a statesanctioned policy called biculturalism, where the nation would be comprised of the Māori and the Pākehā, an equal partnership that is enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi (O’Sullivan 2008, p.319). In terms of reforms, this would mean “the coexistence of two cultures” with the “values and traditions of both cultures reflected in today’s customs, laws, practices, and institutional arrangements” (O’Reilly & Wood 1991, p.321).
Biculturalism: What’s evident
Te Marae, a fully functioning ceremonial meeting space that seeks to become a bicultural forum
Biculturalism is reflected in the Māori and Pākehā exhibitions. Mana Whenua (customary authority over lands) is the title of the Māori exhibition. Most notably is the Te Marae, a fully functioning ceremonial meeting space that seeks to become a bicultural forum (Te Papa n.d. “Te Marae”). This idea of the museum becoming a bicultural forum dates back to Te Papa’s 1989 concept of becoming a bicultural forum for the nation (Te Papa Annual Report 2008/9, p.14). Here, carvings of mythical Māori creation figures and ancestors are placed side to side with settler figures such as missionary and farmer (Williams 2006, para. 26), which symbolises an attempt to reunite the two cultures together. Significantly, Māori Scholar Arapata Hakiwai argues that approval from the Māori world can come from the using of Te Marae for significant Māori events (McCarthy 2016, p.142). Such was the case for the Māori Economic Summit of 2005 (Te Papa Annual Report 2004/5, p. 15) and the 2008 agreement between the crown and iwi on the ‘Aquaculture deal’ that was signed at Te Papa with the attendance of several iwi and the Prime Minister (McCarthy 2016, p.142). As such, the importance of Te Marae in functioning as a bicultural forum is evident.
Meanwhile, the Pākehā exhibitions consists of Passports and On the Sheep’s Back. Passports tell the Pākehā story of immigration, with a recreated steerage of a New Zealand Company colony ship (Te Papa n.d. “Passports”). Here, there are personal accounts of the journey, of the struggles and joys of making a new home in New Zealand (Williams 2003, p.63). Here, there is both a celebration and a denouncement of migration. Meanwhile, On the Sheep’s Back is a playful take on the role of the environment, sheep, and wool on the livelihood and rural social life of the Pākehā. (Williams 2006, para.18) Wool is celebrated through the many displays of wool products such as teacosies and socks worn during World War I and the production process of garments (Te Papa n.d. “On the Sheep’s Back”).
Furthermore, the Treaty of Waitangi exhibit, dubbed The Signs of a Nation takes up the core space of Te Papa, which sits on the intersection between the Māori and Pākehā exhibition (Attwood 2013, p.58), symbolising the importance of the Treaty in their histories. The first part of
the exhibition is Voices of the Nation, where the visitor is surrounded by steel poles with soundbites of ordinary citizens discussing the treaty’s meaning and values to them, both in the past and contemporary times (William 2006, para.28). Additionally, the space is bordered by two large glass panels carrying the full text of the Treaty in both Māori and in English, to highlight the large differences between the two translations (Dibley 2007, p.142).
For example, ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ (chiefly authority) is evident in the Māori version of the Treaty but is largely missing in the English version (Attwood 2013, p.60). To symbolise this ‘messy’ history, a large glass relief is suspended in the center of the two Treaties followed by seats placed between the two texts to encourage visitors to reflect on the contentious nature of the Treaty (Attwood 2013, p.60).
Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Signs of a Nation, 2015. Photograph by Norm Heke. Te Papa
Also, the creation of a bicultural institution was not only displayed outwardly through exhibitions but also inwardly through corporate organisation. The institutionalisation of biculturalism is apparent through the hiring of Māori staff and bicultural training and classes on Māori language and culture for the Te Papa staff along with the establishment of an independent Māori research unit (McCarthy 2016, p.120). There is also a Māori leadership position akin to that of a CEO termed Kaihautū (Dibley 2007, p.134) and a network called kaitaki (caretakers of taonga) Māori was created for the Māori staff at the Museum (McCarthy 2016, p.104). Te Papa also encourages several iwi outreach programs such as public festivals, exhibition, repatriation, collection development and so on (McCarthy 2016, p.142).
Biculturalism: Its shortcomings
At a time when biculturalism meant the “coexistence of two culture” (O’Reily & Wood 1991, p.321) and thus, presents the notion that Māori and Pākehā history are intimately connected, there are jarring omissions of Māori history in the Pākehā exhibitions. Take Passports for example. While there is a narrative of trauma and the arduousness of migration is evident for the Pākehā, the exhibition omits a “trauma of a different and altogether most destructive kind” of Pākehā migration on the Māori (Williams 2003, p.168). In turn, visitors may take from the exhibition an impression that settler societies and the Māori settled in isolation from one another (Williams 2003, p.169). A similar erasure of Māori history is also evident in the On the Sheep’s Back exhibition. Historically, Māori make up a high proportion of farmhands and shearers and yet, their labour history is barely mentioned (Williams 2006, para. 19). Moreover, the controversial treaty-sanctioned land acquisition and the complete omission of the 1845-72 New Zealand Land Wars (Williams 2006, para. 18-9) reflects the inability of Te Papa to face the difficulties of a bicultural history where the economic dominance of the Pākehā has largely “relied on Māori loss” (Williams 2015, p.88). This sentiment is best portrayed by Georgina Te Heuheu, a board member of Te Papa:
How do we make that [biculturalism] underpin our exhibitions? If we’re talking about peopling ourselves and exhibiting ourselves, then we have to bring Māori into the equation. While the sheep runs were being developed, Ngai Tahu [the principal South Island tribe] over 20 years, lost all their land. (Williams 2015, p.88).
Apart from the exhibition, the organisational and governance structure of Te Papa has its shortcomings. Firstly, Professor Ngatata Love, a board member and leader of the Te Ati Awa tribe has claimed disappointment because his people “have no say” at the board (McCarthy 2016, p.117). Moreover, the kaitaki Māori network have their share of problems. There is a problem with recruitment and retention of Māori staff because the trend of putting resources into recruiting and keeping Māori staff has waned over the years (McCarthy 2016, p. 106). This trend is reflected in the mere 5 per cent of Indigenous professionals working in the total museum sector workforce (McCarthy 2016, p.105). Furthermore, kaitaki often feel like they cannot fit into a predominantly Pākehā organisational structure as they prefer the guidance of elders in taking care of taonga (McCarthy 2016, p.106). In terms of the Kaihautū role, once Cliff Whiting left the position in 2000, the importance of maintaining iwi relationships and the mana taonga policy (the responsibility associated with the possession of taonga) were largely abandoned (McCarthy 2016, p.119). Although there was an ‘attempted’ partnership between the Kaihautū and the CEO, the Kaihautū were often not consulted before major decisions are made. This is portrayed in an exchange between Kaihautū Te Taru White and CEO Bennington, where Bennington tried to pitch a restructuring project that would affect Māori staffing capacity. At the lack of consultation, White performed a haka and then said:
How dare you reach across into my Māori heart and rip it out without even asking me at any stage how I felt about that! You have insulted me, you have insulted my people... (McCarthy 2016, p.119)
In addition, many scholars have noted that Signs of a Nation is not critical enough of Pākehā culpability and past injustices via the Treaty (Dibley 2007, p.142). Several reasons emerge as to why that’s the case. First, the development team comprised mainly of Pākehā concept leaders and the Museum’s Māori staff and even acting Kaihautū at the time, Cliff Whiting, had little say on the matter (Attwood 2013, p.64). The vision of the exhibition was also contradictory in that it had to both recognise the Treaty’s historical differences and reconcile them (Attwood 2013, p.65). Moreover, senior Pākehā figures argued that the draft exhibition was “too critical” of Pākehā and would thus alienate key Pākehā audiences (Attwood 2013, p.65). This shows that Pākehā would become the key target demographic of the exhibition, which explains the caution around the exhibition’s development. In addition, when the conservative National Party came into power in 1990, they pushed for social cohesion as the main target for the Museum (Te Papa Annual Report 2003/4, p.16). To achieve this, they appointed a Pākehā businessman as chairman of Te Papa’s governing board (Hasler 1999). As such, it can be seen why the Treaty had ended up becoming less critical of itself due to its institutional history
Conclusion
Biculturalism can be seen in the Māori-Pākehā exhibitions, in Te Papa’s organsation structure, in the creation of a bicultural forum and the Treaty of Waitangi exhibition. However, there are shortcomings of the bicultural policy in Te Papa such as the underrepresentation of Māori in the executive board and caretaking jobs, the omission of Māori history from Pākehā history, and the Treaty of Waitangi exhibition’s inability to reconcile with its settler past. In the words of Maori academic, Piri Sciscia, “He toi whakairo, he mana tangata”, which means “with art comes human dignity” (McCarthy 2016, p.55). While biculturalism has introduced reconciliation attempts, whether human dignity has been reached is a matter of debate, especially when biculturalism is still a work in progress.
Once you’re happy with your blog, make sure to publish your posts from the Dashboard and go live with your site by clicking Publish.
Comments