Ethnicity measures, intermarriage and social policy.

• Author: Callister, Paul

Abstract

Ethnicity is a key variable in social science research and policy making. Yet, for many individuals in New Zealand society ethnicity is a fluid characteristic. Against a backdrop of historical debates about the measurement of ethnicity, this paper initially explores some of the recent changes that have taken place in the recording of ethnicity in the New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings. There is particular emphasis on how individuals belonging to more than one ethnic group have been recorded and reported in official publications. Next, several key changes recommended by Statistics New Zealand in its 2004 review of ethnicity statistics are outlined. Finally, there is a discussion of some of the implications for social scientists and policy makers of recognising dual and multi-ethnicity.

INTRODUCTION

Measuring and reporting the ethnic composition of New Zealand is an important part of an ongoing process of understanding our identity as individuals, as groups, and as a nation. Ethnicity (and, in some situations, ancestry) is a very important dimensional variable in social science research and policy making. In New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi creates a particular need for definitions as to who is Maori and who is not. However, ethnicity is not a human characteristic that can be easily identified or measured. In common with other countries, in New Zealand there remains ongoing debate as to the best way of measuring ethnicity in data collections, like the five-yearly Census of Population and Dwellings; in sample surveys, like the Household Labour Force Survey; and in administrative collections, like death certificates. This debate includes regular reviews of ethnicity statistics undertaken by Statistics New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand 2004). Yet despite these discussions, Baehler (2002:27) argues that in New Zealand there is a "pent-up demand for dialogue on the broad subject of ethnicity and what it means for national identity and public policy".

The first section of this paper explores some of the historical debates around the collection and reporting of ethnicity and, to a lesser degree, ancestry data in New Zealand. The United States is used as a comparison. In doing so, the paper generally uses the term "race" when referring to research in the United States, but "ethnicity" in relation to New Zealand. With this background in mind, the paper then examines changes that have taken place in the recording of ethnicity in the New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings since 1991. (2) While there are many dimensions to debates about the collection and reportage of ethnicity data, I am particularly interested in the way in which respondents who acknowledge belonging to more than one ethnic group have been classified. With regard to this issue, the paper then outlines some changes to past practice now recommended by Statistics New Zealand (2004) in its Review of the Measurement of Ethnicity.

That people choose to record multiple ethnicities generally reflects that:

* they are the children of either recent or distant ethnic intermarriages

* they place value on more than one ethnic group. (3)

The second section of the paper explores some social policy implications of historical and current ethnic intermarriage, particularly between Maori and non-Maori, and the growing proportion of New Zealanders who claim multi-ethnic affiliations.

MEASURING ETHNICITY AND ANCESTRY

The Classification of Individuals

Classifications of race and ethnicity have a long and often problematic history. In a review of this history, Stephan and Stephan (2000) note that by the late 18th century, biologists began to subject humans to the same type of classification system previously used only for plants and other animals. (4) The result was that physical characteristics were used to define tribes or races. In common with other countries, race was the basis of most early New Zealand statistical collections (Statistics New Zealand 2004).

While the term "race" continues to be used in countries like the United States, Stephan and Stephan suggest that race is now more properly viewed as a social rather than a biological construct, even if biology still plays a role in the phenotypic expression of some physical characteristics. (5) The majority of social scientists share this view, as do most individuals studying the biological sciences (Graves 2001, Rivara and Finberg 2001). (6) Research by the latter group not only undermines concepts of "pure" races but also any separation of human beings into races. Based on this type of research, "ethnicity" has been gradually replacing the term "race" in scientific literature (Afshari and Bhopal 2002).

New Zealand social science researchers and official agencies now almost always use the term ethnicity rather than race. (7) Use of the word "ethnicity" moves the discussions further away from biological characteristics and more firmly into the area of social construction. Yet, as Collins (2001a:18) argues, "there is no deep and analytically important distinction between 'race' and 'ethnicity'". (8) He goes on to suggest:

Conventionally, races are regarded as physically distinctive (for example, by skin color), while ethnic groups are merely culturally distinct. But ethnic groups also have somatotypical differences (hair, skin color, facial structures, and the like), and these differences are one of the chief markers that people commonly seize on in situations where consciousness of ethnic divisions is high. A sociological distinction between ethnicity and race is analytically pernicious, because it obscures the social processes determining the extent to which divisions are made in the continuum of somatotypical graduations. The construction of ethnicity for individuals is a complex process and there is much debate about how this process takes place (e.g. Didham 2004, Kukutai 2003, Pearson 1990, 2001, Statistics New Zealand 2001, 2003b, 2004). Statistics New Zealand (2004) sets out a number of factors that may contribute to, or influence, a person's ethnicity. As they note, many of these are interrelated. This list is:

* name (9)

* ancestry

* culture

* where a person lives and the social context

* race

* country of birth and/or nationality

* citizenship

* religion and language.

As a subset of these influences, Broughton (1993) identifies the three key elements of defining Maori identity as whanaungatanga (the family and kinship ties), te whenua (the land) and te reo (the language). Kilgour and Keefe (1992), when considering Maori health statistics, list three possible types of definition for Maori: biological, self-identity and descent. The key difference between biological and descent is that in the latter "degrees of blood" are not specified. How much these various influences matter often depends on the reason why identity is being determined. As O'Regan (2001:87) notes, when resources are at stake, identity definition becomes more important:

The difficulties inherent in the process of distinguishing those who have the right or ability to identify with a particular group are further complicated when economic and political rights are associated with that identity. O'Regan (p.86) also comments that:

Countries that have a long history of intermarriage between ethnic groups can usually claim an equally long history of conflicting views on which factors are required to determine ethnic identity. Recognising that there may be many influences on the choice of ethnic group by individuals, Statistics New Zealand's definition of an ethnic group has in recent years been very broad. As a result of its review of ethnicity statistics, Statistics New Zealand (2004:14) has proposed a new guiding definition. This draws on the work of Smith (1986).

An ethnic group is made up of people who have some or all of the following characteristics (original emphasis): * a common proper name * one or more elements of common culture which need not be specified, but may include religion, customs, or language * unique community of interests, feelings and actions * a shared sense of common origins or ancestry, and * a common geographic origin. While focusing on individuals who are constructing their own ethnicity, it is important to keep in mind that various "others", such as employers, landlords, teachers and the police, will also be constructing a person's ethnicity. For instance, Xie and Goyette (1997:549-550) note that, for members of minority groups in the United States, "choice"

about ethnicity is limited by "labels imposed by other members of society or by custom." Waters (1990, 1996) also puts forward the view that minority groups have less flexibility in determining their ethnicity. Often this construction of ethnicity will be constrained or influenced by observable characteristics (Brunsma and Rockquemore 2001, Mason 2001, Thomas and Nikora 1995). This includes phenotypic expression of particular physical characteristics, such as skin colour or, at times, surnames. Yet physical characteristics and surnames can be misleading. For instance, when announcing a top female Maori scholar, Maria magazine (2002:22) focuses initially on physical characteristics, but notes, "Don't be fooled by the blond hair and the green eyes. She's Maori, really, and is our top scholar for the year." That a top all-round female Maori scholar in 2003 had a stereotypical Asian surname is another example (NZQA 2003).

While social scientists now tend to see ethnicity as primarily a social construct, there is still a vigorous debate among international health researchers as to whether the phenotypic expression of particular physical characteristics is important (e.g. Bhopal 2002, Goodman 2000, Graves 2001, Kaufman and Cooper 2002, Rivara and Finberg 2001, Satel, 2000, Schwartz 2001, Wade 2003, Witzig 1996). The issue is whether particular genes alter the propensity of groups to be at risk from certain types of illness...