ARE WE A NATION OF CONFORMISTS?

New Zealand Listener, Volume 37, Issue 953, 15 November 1957, Page 4

ARE WE A NATION OF CONFORMISTS?

HIS is the text of a talk on "Personal Relationships" given by DR CLEM HILL, Lecturer in Education at Otago University. Dr Hill was speaking in the NZBS series, "New Zealand Attitudes"

WONDER if you've noticed the way so many New Zealanders ask any and every visitor to our country what he thinks of it, whether he likes us. and so on. It seems to me that in asking such questions we appear like the. person who is not sure of himself -eager for praise, but resenting criticism. And, of course, as our approach in these matters is quite blatant, we receive the rosy praise we’re after. Let, for instance, Lord Bledisloe speak on behalf of our visitors. "Socially the people are almost ideally democratic; courtesy and good manners are universal; there is very little swearing and drunkenness and a shabbily dressed person is seldom seen." Now, my only comment is that he hasn't "been around." In order to see ourselves as we really are, we ought not to accept such statements at their face value. We need to look at ourselves more critically and with more detachment, till we reach the stage of taking ourselves and our habits for granted. It’s a stage of development we haven't reached yet, perhaps because we haven't lived long enough in our country to acquire this kind of attitude. Many of the critical comments I mention, will be well enough known to you, but perhaps few of you have seen them against the pattern I'm suggesting is behind them. Don’t think from what I have to say that I think personal relationships in general in New Zealand are in an extremely bad way. No! One could list many advantages. Tipping-a social evil-is practically non-existent; one can talk and mix freely with workers, shop assistants, cabinet ministers, and even dentists; and domestic helpers (where they exist) and boarders tend to be treated as one of the family. But even advantages like these lose much of their value in a society which is markedly conformist — where social pressures: are such that one must fit in almost totally with such class-levelling practices, without much opportunity for initiative in different sorts of circumstances. There may well be occasions when one wishes to give a little extra for special services. One may want to be more independent about mixing with all other people merely on the grounds that all people are meant to be equal. And one may not really desire the boarder to merge into the house-hold-in fact, the boarder may, himself, wish to be free of the family ties. I’m not suggesting we change the values behind these practices, but I am making the plea that we must not expect people to conform to these all the time. Yet there’s little doubt that in general this is what we do. We're recognised as a_highly-conforming society and yet paradoxically we're termed a race of individualists-enter-prising and adaptable. I suggest, however, that this enterprise and adaptability is largely confined to material things and does not extend in blanket fashion over: our social and emotional reactions: When we go overseas, into ‘a fairly rigid class society,:we seem more adaptable socially because we prudently and sincerely take people at

their face value. But in relation to other New Zealanders, the individualism takes the form of self-concern. Now, whether this self-concern is a cause or a consequence of a welfare state is a matter for sociologists to ponder over, but the self-concern expresses itself in a feeling of insecurity by over-conforming in the society. We don’t want to look conspicuous or different. We want above all to be a good Kiwi and like all the others. Not that we are without tolerance of eccentricity or crankiness in others. In fact our tolerance and fairmindedness makes great allowances for such deviation in others provided they are not New Zealanders. We in fact feel that we want to like the others and to be like them. Partially our conformity is due to the provincialism of New Zealand — we know and are known by many people everywhere; social and geographical mobility make this so. The mystical but commanding "they" operates overtime in this overtime-conscious country. We claim we are free but freedom has its limits and ours tend to be those of middle-class provincialism. One test of a mature person is that he is accepted as a member of a group and can yet remain a unique individual. As I see it, we New Zealanders have difficulty in retaining uniqueness in our general conformity to the group. Perhaps in a similar way to adolescent gtoups we fee] it necessary to conform in dress, speech and behaviour. Even when we arrange parties, we try to get together people of the same interests as far as is possible, so nothing untoward happens. When controversial issues arise we like to be nearly all of the same mind. Of course, I’m generalising, but this is an observation common to visitors and indeed many Kiwis. This phenomenon appears repeatedly in discussion groups, committees (of which we have so many) and confer-ences-too few of the members speak their minds openly. We seem afraid to commit ourselves for fear of stepping out of line with what most people will think. Our relationships with others, we feel, depend on whether we think alike and act alike, This leads us into further problems in business. The workman or clerk calls his boss "Jim" and the boss calls him "Bob," and this is as I feel it should be. But we run into difficulties when boss "Jim" has to criticise or correct "Dick" about his job. The resentment that often arises is a personal one -sometimes quite upsetting to the outwardly satisfactory relationship. Now this sort of situation suggests to me a feeling of insecurity, a feeling which is expressed in all sorts of other situations too, and arises because in personal relationships New Zealanders are insecure. You see, we either call a man by his Christian name-and this is the more common practice-or we refer to him as "Mr So and So." To use the bare surname sounds rude and most of us bridle when someone says to us, re, say, Smith -" though one gets quite used to this overseas. It’s curious that although it’s a common practice in high schools for teachers to use the surname only and for pupils to feel this is a mark of maturity, it’s not carried on

into adult life, Instead when it happens we react as the adolescent does to criticism. Perhaps many of the so-called "immature" aspects others observe in our behaviour are indications that as a young nation we’ve not grown through this phase in personal relationships. Don’t mistake this interpretation as derogatory. After all, there’s nothing wrong with being at any particular stage of development, and one is all the better for knowing where one is placed. We either accept a person wholeheartedly or we treat them very formally. We haven’t the in-between gradations that can be so helpful in different sets of circumstances. And we are scared of admitting there can be differences between people which do not necessi‘tate rigid social distinctions. We must have things cut and dried for useither be accepted or be on the outerand yet we're continually in difficulty deciding which is correct for -which occasion, In our personal letter-writing the same thing occurs. Are we to write, = Smith, Dear Sir,’ and sign off "Yours faithfully," or are we to write "Dear Jack," signing off "Sincerely yours," or "Regards"? On enquity I° . find these problems do create some degree of concern in most of us because it’s important for us to be right and at the same time genuine Kiwis. Practical. and adaptable as we are in material matters, we are much less so in our relations with others. Furthermore, we séem to be bound by the conventions of manners rather than by the sense of them-though we can claim no monopoly in this field. We’ve thrown over certain acts as being outmoded in these days of sex equality (I almost said identity)-things such as men walking on the street side of women, and men standing up for women in public transport. In the latter, however, we've thrown out the kumara with the peelings, for we aren’t discriminating in the choice of whom to stand up for. It

seerhs Common sense that older men and women and young wives laden with parcels, for instance, could well qualify, but rather than let the side down, men tend to remain seated regardless of who is standing. Dare to stand, fly in the face of this new convention, and you tisk disgusted looks from glowering and perhaps slightly guilty-looking males. I can’t deal at length with the manners of motorists because, as a pedestrian, I daren’t risk local consequences, but again the lack of deep feeling for others comes to the fore. In spite of the traffic regulations, most pedestrians are still hesitant about venturing forth boldly on to a zebra crossing. Their safety lies less in the strength of the law than in the consideration of the drivers who, when all is said and done, are fellow citizens. I think another example of our immaturity is in the amount of swearing that goes on: it’s a sign of poverty in both emotional and language development. Foreigners especially, notice the way many New Zealanders swear in front of women. And yet, you'll say, this unconcern for others is surely not as typical as I’ve suggested. We are a friendly hospitable people, especially towards the South, in much the same way as hospitality is said to increase towards the North in England. Perhaps the climate plays a more important role here than we've realised. Is the hospitality warmer because of the need to entertain indoors in front of fires, or is it that certain traditions of open-house have stayed with the descendants of certain groups of settlers? Whatever the reason, when someone in New Zealand says, "You must come round to our place, sometime," he really means it and acts on it by setting a time or by just expecting you to pop in. This leads us on to the general question of friendship. New Zealanders have often been described as typically a friendly people, but I wonder if this is not a misleading description. I think (continued on page 30)

ARE WE A NATION OF CONFORMISTS ?

(continued from page 4) it arises from several factors: the outward lack of group. distinctions; the genuine acceptance of people for what they’re worth; the ease of first meeting; and the introduction by, and rapid use of first. names, In fact, it’s friendship of a limited kind-it starts and usually stops at about that initial level. We know many people. Our small population is mobile, and that cancels out the relatively great distances. The free, compulsory, virtually non-segre-gated schooling means people from all walks of life are in contact with each other. We have, then, many acquaint-ances-people we address in personal terms, invite home, spend an evening with, and discuss and argue with, but we have few real friends. Deep friendship means more than being prepared to do most things if called upon; more than being someone to be counted on. It implies an intimate sharing of experiences, of doubts, hopes, and underlying feelings. We have a barrier of reserve beneath the exterior of amiicability. Not that this friendliness is a mere facade-it is genuine enough, but we baulk at getting emotionally involved beyond a certain stage. We're’ reticent about our private world and show less desire than do people of many other countries to share this inner life with trusted friends. Now what I have been saying applies among men and among women. The relationship between men and women is a different phase altogether. At least the possession of deep friends of the same sex, though not as common here as elsewhere, is tolerated. Few married men here, however, would relish the task of explaining friendships with women other than their wives. We are conditioned to think in terms of "the other woman." This restriction on the sex of our friends, because it applies the other way round as well, is surely an unsatisfactory and immature state of affairs. The relationship between men and women in New Zealand needs looking into further. There are numerous reasons. why one seldom sees married couples walking arm in arm along the streets, but this does not explain why the couples one sees merely walking

together seem peculiarly detached. It’s almost as if the husband accompanies his wife with the awkwardness of an elder brother who has been made to go along with one of his sisters. On the other hand, the desire to be seen among his own sex appears strong in the New Zealand male. A Continental man, for instance, enjoys the company of women--we merely tolerate them. This is a man’s country, but we appear at times, anyway, to have preserved the tastes and habits of adolescent boys. For pronouncedly male as we are, it’s not in an aggressively sexual sense. We will do what most Con-

tinentals would find psychologically dis-turbing-and ,we have every right to be proud of it. We will carry a milk bottle, the bread, or the meat home quite openly. In this homely sense we can give males in many other countries a worthwhile lead even though the source of this characteristic may lie in our partial immaturity. Now this degree of immaturity may also explain why, at parties and evenings, males congregate on one side of the room and females on the otherthe women .probably talking home and the men shop, or giving practical hints for handymen from their own personal experience. (For to be assimilated rapidly into New Zealand, the immigrant must have some prowess in this direction.) Again, you’ve probably noticed the segregation in dance halls with the so-typical sight of young women sitting round the hall and the stag line a shuffling mob hanging round the doors, We must not appear to be too interested in women. Among other men, we get absorbed in our conversation, our eyes light up, we are natural and relaxed and may even gesticulate a little; we may almost be charming. But this does not carry over to our relations with women, We may be good, kindly, helpful and tolerant, but not charming. We respect this in others but can’t attain it in ourselves. This doesn’t necessarily imply that our emotional relationships lack depth, but it suggests that on the surface in one another’s company there is lack of ease, embarrassment, and tenseness. Now you may not have seen in these observations I have made, the same underlying pattern of conformity and insecurity-I don’t know which is prior. However, in your disagreeing try to find some other ways of explaining these ' varied aspects of our personal relationships which can be observed by anyone almost- any day. Ill leave you with another example, Note the prevalence of so-called social drinking in New Zealand. Drinking not for enjoyment, but to get drunk or more often to pretend to get drunk-the state that many people sober up from when something drastic occurs. Much of the drinking I suspect is to gain release from the rigid conformity without and the insecurity within.