Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 32, Issue 823, 6 May 1955, Page 5

‘ Sir.-There are four main sorts of data relevant to the current discussion of race relations in New Zealand. These are: Reports of field research: démographic statistics; other publicly avai!able reports which are indicative of social disorganisation and disruption (for example, crime statistics); and finally, isolated social events which may. be reported from time to time, the significance of which is not known except within an interpretative framework. Professor Piddington agrees that few of | the first are available, ‘but we differ about the interpretation of the other three sorts of data. Demographic data allow of limited statistical interpretation; it is research

field work which adds their social meaning. Professor Piddington, however, invests the demographic facts with meaning based on evidence of the fourth sort, namely on an interpretation of the meaning of displays of Maori nationalism. This interpretation is used by Professor Piddington and Dr. Winiata to support their belief that most Maori groups are today living with a full and operative social organisation, including an integrated Maori value structure, all of which is said to offer to the Maori a complete range of social and psychological satisfactions. These scholars also believe that contemporary Maori social phenomena are not indicative of serious social disorganisation. Such a belief I maintain is gratuitous because unplausible. Only extended research will settle the question at issue. Working purely on the hypothesis of social disorganisation (while the basic task of research progresses), I am suggesting that we aim at removing social evils, poverty, ignorance, and the rest, while attempting to increase social participation and communication between Maori and European, both as persons and as groups, It is not my wish to interfere with anyone’s legitimate cultural aspirations provided these are a sign of integration and adjustment. But ‘since Professor Piddington’s interpretations may be in error, and these aspirations may represent, in fact, a turning away from the realities of economic and social disorganisation, an accgotance of illusions, I consider it undesirZole that a romantic cultural interest current among scholars and intelligentsia be used to bolster a nativistic revival. Incidentally, I see no reason to assume, as do several of my Maori critics, that paheka field reports are so unreliable as to give no _ satisfactory understanding of Maori life. I see no reason why I should throw into my wastepaper basket copies of Percy Smith, Elsdon Best, Tregear, Firth, Keesing, Hawthorn and Sutherland. I am also sure that any University department is more than happy to offer all the facilities at its disposal for the training of Maoris in scholarship and research. The point at issue in Dr. Winiata’s letter is really quite simple. Should we have in New Zealand a policy of "two peoples: one nation," or shou!d our policy be based upon one country, one people? Professor Piddington is no doubt far more familiar with anthropological literature than I am. I find it difficult therefore to understand why, in the light of his reading and experience, he should choose to ignore the disruptive consequences of "apartness" policies, Throughcut the world there are examples of the effects of ‘this principle among deprived and embittered minority groups. It is difficult to see what operationally valid guarantee Professor Piddington and Dr. Winiata can give themselves, let alone others. that an "apartness’’ policy such as they advocate will not.be as disasttous here as elsewhere. The values which I bring to this discussion are the values given by my training as a social scientist and are therefore not determined by my membership of any ethnic group. If ethnocentricity means valuing freedom for individual development rather than synthetically rebuilding and enforcing the authority of an outmoded social system, then I welcome the accusation. However, ethnocentricity does not commonly mean this, and in assessing my

values Professor Piddington has made a sampling error due, I suspect, to his over-hasty penchant for generalisation.

JAMES E.

RITCHIE

(Wellington).

(No further letters can be printed on this subject if they are more than 300 wordy: in length.-Ed. }