Maori Analysis - Crothers Theoritical Models explaining Maori Failure / Success (Part 2)

Crothers Description of Models for Theorising Māori disparities and/ or achievements

Excerpts taken from "Wellbeing and Disparity in Tamakimakaurau" report 2.

Click here for all the research reports:

http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/well-being-and-disparity-in-tamaki-makaurau-1

Click here for pdf of the Crothers report 

http://www.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/central/shared/about/maori-at-auckland/documents/Wellbeing%20and%20disparity%20Vol%202.pdf

Theoritical Models

The Age Difference model: 

The age structure (and other differences between Māori and non-Māori) places extra impediments on Māori levels of achievement.
• Background: there are several (relatively innocuous or even subtle) ways in which Māori and non-Māori populations differ The more obvious of these is that Māori, because of a higher rate of natural increase, have a “younger population” with a lower mean age. As a result Māori have a greater concentration of certain
components (e.g. younger children, teenagers) and a paucity in other components (e.g. older people): were these differential components to be “controlled for” Māori /non-Māori differences would reduce, if not disappear. Alternatively, it might be shown that certain social phenomena particularly arise because of the
combined effect of the differential components: for example, the “control structure” in Māori communities might be affected by larger numbers to be controlled, but fewer to control.
• Underpinnings: the theoretical assumptions need only be straight “demography”.
• Issues: what characteristics need to be considered other than age structure and its more obvious implications (e.g. household size)?
• Measurement: the differential age structure (or other difference) should be controlled for statistically.
• Policy implication: while such differences are obdurate in the short term, in the long term they might fade away. One policy implication might be to implement population policy (e.g. encourage limiting births) to try to even out demographic differences.

The Class model: 

Much of the lack of achievement of many Māori is also shared by the New Zealand working class more generally.
• Background: in the world literature a major theme is the way in which minority groups are also often limited (even ghettoised) at the bottom of the social structure, and that many of their difficulties are shared by others in the working class (or even lumpen-proletariat). Minority groups are often more lowly placed in the class structure, as they are more recent “immigrants” without the education, “cultural capital” or accumulated economic capital to readily break into the processes of capital production.
• Underpinnings: this theoretical approach may be (but is not necessarily) Marxian in tone.
• Issues: which particular aspect of class is more pertinent (e.g. education, income, assets…) and also does the effect of class precede or is it subsequent to the effect of ethnicity?
• Measurement: ethnicity should be “controlled” by measures of class and only the residual attributed to ethnicity.
• Policy implication: long-term strategies are necessary to build up the ability of Māori to engage successfully in the Pākehā class system.

The Capitalist/Structural model: 

Māori have insufficient access to the main structural levers of collective achievement (e.g. economic capital) and more generally the intergenerational mobility processes of Māori do not work as well.
Background/Underpinnings: this is a more solidly Marxian version of the class model. One argument is that “invisible ceilings” inhibit Māori advancement above a certain point.
• Measurement: the key measure is the extent to which capital is owned/controlled by stakeholders within Māoridom and requires a group analysis.
• Policy implication: that Māori need more access to capital to participate in the central processes of capitalism.

The Discrimination model: 

Māori are seriously discriminated against by non-Māori who retain control over gatekeeping (access to societal resources).
• Background: clearly there are elements of racism within New Zealand society and these attitudes may be actively (or more passively) directed against Māori by  those with decision making roles in the hiring of staff, choice of tenants for houses and so on.
• Underpinnings: quite a large literature on “gatekeepers” emerged in the leftWeberian literature in race relations and urban studies from the 1960s on and has led to a variety of empirical studies that have validated this viewpoint.
• Issues: on the other hand, there is some “reverse discrimination” propelled by “affirmative action” programmes which differentially favour Māori.
• Measurement: it may be possible to measure (directly or indirectly) people’s (and especially gatekeepers’) attitudes and (better still) their behaviour, so that discrimination can be revealed. However, over time the growing cultural prescriptions on racist discourse (i.e. “political correctness”) have meant that racist attitudes are more difficult to measure as they are more often (at least partially) suppressed.
• Policy implication: education of gatekeepers and also ensuring that gatekeepers are sufficiently sensitive to issues of racism.

The “Culture of Poverty” model: 

Many Māori (and others) have taken up (more or less actively) a culture that is resistant to capitalism.
• Background: it is clear that capitalism generates (at least partial) opposition and resistance from some groups, especially its victims, and the cultural values held by such groups may inhibit their extent of success in advancement. For example, working class people may prefer a “socialist” or a “cooperative” solution, or wish to directly and actively sabotage capitalist production in their workplace, or prefer to “retreat” into some cultural haven.
• Underpinnings: this approach largely stems from a “subculture” viewpoint.
• Measurement: Although capitalist-resistant attitudes may not always be easy to measure, some differences may be reasonably clearly demarcated.
• Policy implication: either those holding counter-cultural values need to be supported in achieving through non-capitalist routes, or they need “re-education”.

The “Cultural Deficit” model: 

Māori culture has values that inhibit achievement.
• Background: this is a more culture-specific version of the “culture of poverty” model, in which Māori attitudes are seen as more directly stemming from cultural values, rather than as a more diffuse reaction to their social situation.
Underpinnings: perhaps this view can be traced back to a holistic anthropological model which emphasizes cultural specificity and uniqueness.
• Measurement: group analysis would be required, although analysis of the extent to which individual attitudes of Māori seem tightly derived from cultural values may be possible.
• Policy implication: as for “culture of poverty” model.

The “Pākehā Capital” argument: 

Organizations in New Zealand have such a Pākehā flavour that they do not work as well for Māori.
• Background: sometimes Māori have difficulties, varying from minor to major, in dealing with established institutions, which seems to flow from a Pākehā style of operation.
• Underpinnings: this model would be an application of Bourdieu’s class-based arguments that social stratification often works in a way set by dominating interests and rewards those who share styles similar to those of the dominant group.
• Measurement: studies of “provider-provided” interactions would be required to pin down the ways in which difficulties seem to arise.
• Policy implication: setting up either Māori “providers” or organizations with more distinctly “Māori” user-friendliness.

The “Contextual” model: 

Māori in some geographical (or community) situations face extra impediments than those in other geographical (or community) situations.
• Background: it seems some portion of the Māori population have achieved a reasonable position in the New Zealand social order, but that particular “pockets” remain, for example in some rural areas, although such “pockets” need not be spatially defined.
• Underpinnings: concern with spatial contexts at least comes out of developments in geography and in the general notion that capitalism is not one solid system but often operates in modulations or waves.
• Issues: which contexts are those that most limit or advance Māori interests?
• Measurement: access to large-scale, largely quantitative datasets are required.
• Policy implication: targeted assistance to particular localities or groups.

The “Social Deficit” model: 

Involvement in Māori social organizations/activities drains energy and resources better devoted to achievement.
• Background: there is some evidence that involvement in Māori culture and social activities is draining of energy, time and resources which might otherwise be devoted to advancement; for example, Māori work or school absenteeism to attend hui may undermine their achievements in several ways.
• Underpinnings: this is a version of the “cultural deficit” model.
• Issues: what is the trade-off preferred by Māori against the observance of Māori cultural values?
• Measurement: trade-off measures may be required which contrast the gains of observance against its costs.
Policy implication: Māori observances of their culture might be encouraged or discouraged.

The “Social Empowerment” model: 

Involvement in Māori organizations/activities generates fresh energy and resources for achievement.
• Background: clearly, many Māori gain confidence from their involvement in
Māori activities and this may spin off positively into other achievements.
• Underpinnings: this is the flip-side of the deficit model.
• Measurement: those who have gained “Māori capital” might be contrasted with
those who haven’t.
• Policy implication: encouragement of involvement in Māori observances.