The problem of defining an ethnic group for public policy: who is Maori and why does it matter?

• Author: Kukutai, Tahu

Abstract

Governments in multicultural democracies are increasingly being challenged to justify the collection of ethnic and racial data, and the targeted policies they support. Given mounting opposition to ethnic-based policies in New Zealand, it is timely to consider two questions that have arisen from ongoing debate. The first is what criteria ought to apply to determine who is Maori for policy purposes. The second is which Maori ought to benefit from targeted policies and programmes. This paper addresses both questions empirically and makes two suggestions: (1) that statistical and legal definitions of Maori be amended to take account of both self-identified ethnicity and descent; (2) that programmes which seek to militate Maori disadvantage be oriented towards those who strongly identify as Maori, since they are the most likely to be in need.

INTRODUCTION

With the new millennium has come rising opposition to the collection of ethnic and racial data and the policies and programmes they support (Connerly 2003, Nobles 2000, Perlmann and Waters 2002, Petersen 1997). (2) A central critique of race- and ethnic-based policies is that they belie the cultural and socio-economic diversity that exits within historically marginalised groups. Clearly not all persons who identify with a disadvantaged group are themselves disadvantaged. The objectivity and accuracy of the data that inform policy decisions have also come under scrutiny. In order to monitor and address disparities, policy makers need reliable and consistent ways to define racial and ethnic groups, and to identify their members. However, intermarriage and changing ideas about race have complicated how people self-identify, and are identified by others (Goldstein and Morning 2002, Harris and Sim 2002, Perlmann and Waters 2002). Increasingly, the treatment of ethnic groups as discrete is problematised by the ability and willingness of individuals to claim multiple affiliations.

Indigenous peoples (3) such as Maori exemplify the problem that policy makers face in dealing with heterogeneity. High rates of intermarriage and institutional pressures to assimilate mean they comprise persons with diverse lifestyles, socio-economic circumstances and identities. Yet, for reasons of history and contemporary politics, public policy tends to treat them as homogeneous (Chapple 2000, Cunningham et al. 2002, Gardiner-Garden 2003, Snipp 2002). Typically indigenous peoples are the only ethnic groups with government agencies to monitor their outcomes, and deliver policies designed to improve their poor group-level status (Birrell 2000, Cobo 1986). (4) Their claim as original or sovereign peoples also confers specific legal rights relating to ownership of land and natural resources, cultural preservation, and political representation.

Given this, indigenous peoples tend to figure prominently in national debates on race, ethnicity, and resources. (5) Certainly in New Zealand there is growing disquiet about the appropriateness and fairness of policies and practices that would appear to assist individuals on the basis of ethnicity. Indeed, at the time of writing a host of targeted policies and programmes were under review, including several major ones aimed at Maori. (6) It is timely, therefore, to give closer scrutiny to some of the issues that have been central to domestic debates about ethnic data and policies.

Underlying the debate is the fundamental question of how to define an ethnic or racial group in contexts where rewards and resources are involved. While this is a matter of consequence for all ethnic groups in New Zealand, it has particular implications for Maori. This paper considers emerging approaches to defining ethnic or racial group membership generally, before turning to the specific context of New Zealand. Related to the issue of definition is the matter of entitlement, and which Maori ought to benefit from public policy interventions. Comparisons are drawn with other indigenous populations with regard to definition and policy entitlement.

THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL ETHNICITY

Over the last decade or so the process and politics of ethnic enumeration have attracted growing attention in New Zealand (Baehler 2002, Chapple 2000, Gould 1992, 2000), and elsewhere (Goldstein and Morning 2002, Nobles 2000, Perlmann and Waters 2002, Smelser et al. 2001, Snipp 2003). This has been due, in part, to the recognition of the key role of ethnic and racial data in political decisions. Such data are routinely used to inform policy formulation, resource allocation, and the determination of electoral boundaries. As awareness of the political importance of ethnic enumeration has grown, so too has the perception that it works to the benefit of minorities (Petersen 1997, Prewitt 2002). This sentiment was manifest in the attempt in California to halt the collection of racial data by state agencies. The so-called Racial Privacy Initiative, or Proposition 54, challenged the "relevance and efficacy of race as a basis for solving many of the problems that cry out for solution" (Connerly 2003). Although defeated, Prop 54 represents an important shift taking place in many countries, away from an implicit acceptance of the need for ethnic and race-based policies, to a more critical position challenging their ongoing justification and utility. In the United States, for example, four states have repealed affirmative action while ongoing legal challenges seek to dismantle programmes intended exclusively for Native Hawaiians.

An argument often leveled in support of efforts to remove targeted policies is the imprecision of racial and ethnic data. There are at least three sources of imprecision. One is inter-marriage because it blurs the boundaries of groups treated as mutually exclusive for policy and political purposes. It also confers options for people to choose their identity, and thus introduces uncertainty and flux. An example is "ethnic mobility"--when persons change their ethnic or racial affiliation over time, or in different contexts (Coope and Piese 1997, Eschbach et al. 1998, Harris and Sim 2002, Statistics New Zealand 2004). A second source of imprecision is the instrument employed to collect the data, and the inconsistencies and imperfections in the methods and concepts used (Hirschman 1992). A third is the shift in thinking about race. Once viewed as a permanent trait rooted in biology, race is now more commonly understood (by academics at least) as a social category that is produced and sustained through a variety of mechanisms (Smelser et al. 2001:3). In keeping with this shift, many developed countries now allow for multiple-race and ethnic responses in official data collections.

Given that indigenous populations in the "fourth world" are becoming larger and more heterogeneous, the question arises as to who can legitimately claim to be indigenous, when positive incentives to claim that identity exist. As Nagel notes, "Discussions about group eligibility are often translated into controversies surrounding individual need, individual ethnicity, and ethnic proof" (1994:160). The question of who is Maori has been the subject of considerable debate (Butcher 2003, Callister 2003, Chapple 2000, Durie 2001, Gould 2000, Kukutai 2003, Pool 2001 1991). At the heart of the problem of defining ethnic group membership is the lack of definitive criteria. In this case, just what is it that makes a person Maori? Is it a preponderance of Maori ancestors--something akin to the notion of being a "full blood"? Is it knowledge of cultural practices and engagement in Maori networks? Is it having a Maori ancestor, no matter how far back? Or, is being Maori merely a state of mind? Clearly any criteria invoked are not objective, but are products of the motivations and cultural assumptions of those doing the classifying. However, given its importance for policy, the task of formulating a definition is both worthwhile and necessary.

Biological Criteria

Biological attempts to identify indigenous peoples are not new. Scholars and governments have long taken an interest in the level of intermix within indigenous populations, with various attempts to establish the number of "pure" Hawaiians (Morton et al. 1967), Maori (New Zealand Census 1926, Buck 1938), and American Indians (see Snipp 2002). In the context of pressures to assimilate, "half bloods" and "quarter-castes" (e.g. New Zealand census 1906) indicated the rate of absorption into the mainstream population--an outcome often viewed as inevitable and desirable. The use of blood samples was one way of estimating the extent of intermixing (Morton et al. 1967). More often, the notion of blood quantum was used. This sought to capture the amount of "racial heritage that could be ascribed to an individual" and, by association, the degree to which "certain behavioral characteristics might be manifested in individual behavior" (Snipp 2002:200). it also served as a way by which to limit eligibility for benefits. Until the 1970s the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service used blood quantum to decide eligibility for benefits and privileges. Proof usually involved tracing one's ancestry to a full-blood ancestor recorded in historical documents such as the census. As Snipp (1997) notes, it is remarkable that such documents were considered definitive given the high likelihood of error. Nevertheless, the modern BIA continued to issue a Certificate of Indian Blood to applicants who sought verification of their Indian ancestry.

In Hawaii blood quantum is used to determine eligibility for a homestead lease from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Applicants must have a blood quantum of at least 50% Hawaiian, defined specifically as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778" (Department of Hawaiian Homelands 2004). Until 1974, and the passing of...