Cultural identity and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989: ideology, policy and practice.

• Author: Keddell, Emily

Abstract

This paper considers the directive contained in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 to maintain a child's cultural identity when they are placed in foster care following substantiated abuse or neglect. The paper examines changes in defining cultural identity, in particular ethnicised cultural identities, with a focus on the contestable and unstable nature of cultural identity. It considers the case both for and against the references to cultural identity in the Act, and examines how the political context influences how cultural identity is defined. Some aspects of social work practice and relevant research are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (the CYPF Act) operates on the principle that, where possible, the primary role in caring for and protecting a child or young person lies with the "child's or young person's family, whanau, hapu, iwi and family group" (s.13[b]). However, when a child is not safe within their family, then the Act says they should be placed in "an appropriate family-like setting, in which he or she can develop a sense of belonging, and in which his or her sense of continuity and his or her personal and cultural identity are maintained" (s.13[f][iii]). Further, it states that when placing children in care, "priority should, where practicable, be given to a person who is a member of the child's ... hapu or iwi ... or, if that is not possible, who has the same tribal, racial, ethnic or cultural background as the child" (s.13[g][i]).

This article discusses section 13 of the CYPF Act, exploring the theoretical and ideological positions, historical particularities and political influences on its construction. It will investigate how these directives might be implemented in both policy and practice, with particular reference to Pakeha, iwi Maori, Pasifika and multiple-ethnicity populations. Selected practice issues for social workers who have to implement this section of the Act with children and their families are also explored. Some of the research on the relative importance of cultural identities when placing children is outlined. The article also attempts to draw together some elements of the culture debates from sociology, psychology, social policy and social work literatures. It proposes that while the Act promotes a simplistic, singular, discrete and objective notion of cultural identity inextricable from ethnicity and kinship ties, in fact cultural identities are contestable, situational, often multiple, not necessarily related to ethnicity or ancestry, and subject to ideological and political influence. The article concludes that while reference to cultural identity is in general positive, care is required when applying the policy so as to avoid the reproduction of essentialist and even racist ideologies.

BACKGROUND TO THE LEGISLATION

The CYPF Act was the result of a lengthy process of consultation with various Maori groups following the release of a report entitled Puao-te-Ata-tu (Day Break) by the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Maori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare (1988). This report was an in-depth critique on the then Department of Social Welfare and the Children and Young Persons Act 1974. Both were found to reinforce institutional racism, which resulted in high numbers of both iwi Maori and Pasifika children entering foster care (Connolly 2001, Cheyne et al. 1997). Iwi Maori wanted greater input into the new legislation to ensure they were granted more influence in the care and protection process. Their input was taken into account as part of a much wider international emphasis within the social service arena on the weakness of services based on universalist principles. Methods based on these seldom met the needs of minorities, who were often some of the neediest groups in society (Cheyne et al. 1997). Furthermore, the Treaty of Waitangi provided a constitutional imperative for including Maori values and concepts within legislative frameworks, something the previous two decades of Maori protest in a wide range of areas had highlighted (see Spoonley 1988).

Thus, the Act that came into force in 1989 included a number of Maori concepts, such as whanau, hapu and iwi, and gave these groups, together with natural or adoptive families, preference over others as those primarily responsible for their children. However, when family/whanau are unable to provide adequate care for children, the focus in stranger placements is to ensure that continuity, safety and belonging are secured for the child (Connolly 2005). One aspect of that continuity is to ensure that, as much as possible, the cultural identity of the child is maintained in a positive manner as they leave their family of origin. This focus on recognising and ensuring the maintenance of cultural identity is seen as an important aspect of protecting both Maori and other minority children from the pervasive and detrimental effects of the dominant Pakeha culture as they enter the care system. The valuing of "cultural identities" is echoed in other public policy documents on cultural identity as being something desirable and important, which promotes health, wellness and social capital (Ministry of Social Development 2005, Durie 1999).

Thus the Act represented a major departure from the conceptualisations of family accepted by its predecessor. By extending the definitions and responsibilities of families to include whanau, hapu and iwi, the Act explicitly attempted to incorporate elements of Maori culture into the Act's precepts. This acceptance of Maori culture into its basic accepted categories of social organisation also resulted in an implicit acceptance and reinforcement of Maori criteria for membership and identity as being whakapapa (in short, genealogy). In this way, the emphasis on family responsibility, reinforced by the neo-liberal economic policies of the time (O'Brien 2001), and constructed around biological kin as the primary social unit, gave rise to several presumptions that require some discussion and debate when applied specifically to the idea of cultural identity.

DEFINING CULTURAL IDENTITY: ANCESTRY, CULTURE, MULTIPLICITY

Benhabib (2002) provides a useful overview of the changing influences on cultural identity conceptualisation. She notes how culture has come to be equated with identity, primarily in response to the development of Western capitalist economies. In these societies the original meanings of culture--to preserve, tend to and care for--has passed through the idea of a "soul's immersion in the shared values, meanings, linguistic signs and symbols of a people, itself considered a unified and homogenous entity" (2002:2), to its current form today where:

Whether in politics or in policy, in courts or in the media, one assumes that each human group "has" some kind of "culture" and that the boundaries between these groups and the contours of their cultures are specifiable and relatively easy to depict. (2002:4) She goes on, as others have (e.g. Schultz and Lavender 2005), to point out the epistemological errors in such conceptualisation, calling it a "reductionist sociology of culture". Turner (1993:412) notes that such a view of culture:

risks essentialising the idea of culture as the property of an ethnic group or race; it risks reifying cultures as separate entities by overemphasising their boundedness and distinctiveness; it risks overemphasising the internal homogeneity of cultures in terms that potentially legitimise repressive demands for communal conformity; and by treating cultures as badges of group identity, it tends to fetishise them in ways that put them beyond the reach of critical analysis. The presentation of culture and cultural identity in this singular, simplistic manner has consequences for how we think injustices among groups should be dealt with, and how human diversity should be encouraged and protected (Benhabib 2002). Clearly, the CYPF Act sets out to provide policy on both of these counts: to address historical injustices against iwi Maori in particular, and to protect cultural diversity. Young (1995) argues that, far from departing from Victorian ideas about "race", contemporary discourses about "culture" often promote essentialist portrayals of cultural groups that instead operate complicitly with demands for the "other". While "culture" is still often used as shorthand for "race", or even ethnicity, a more useful understanding recognises the socially constructed, complex and adaptive nature of culture, the political and economic forces that contribute to its reproduction, the presence of culture among all people (not just those deemed "cultural"), as well as the agency of individuals to be active participants in creating and constructing their own culture and identities (Patton and O'Byrne 2000, Fleras and Spoonley 1999, Holland et al. 1998, Berger and Luckman 1966). Many identities are becoming less connected to ancestry or even kinship, and more closely affiliated to locality, nationality and "improvised" various subjectivities (Holland et al. 1998). For this article, I will focus predominantly on cultural identities related to ethnicity, but acknowledge this is just one aspect of "culture" and its affiliated identities.

Here in Aotearoa/New Zealand, some maintain a strong connection with ancestry as identity. In a context of historical domination, an exclusive, whakapapa-based Maori identity was drawn on throughout the "Maori renaissance" period to assert identity and draw attention to historical grievances (Greenland 1991). This strong Maori identity persists for some, demonstrated by the continuing high percentage (28%) of babies born to a Maori parent and a Pakeha parent who are categorised as "sole Maori" (Kukutai 2003). However, there have also been areas of decline in the significance of Maori ancestry. Kukutai (2003) notes that some 15% of those with Maori...