1
Presentation to the Bio-­‐Engineering Institute The University of Auckland Tuesday 11 June 2013 Associate Professor Elizabeth Rata School of Critical Studies in Education Faculty of Education Race Politics in the University and the Effects on Knowledge This afternoon I ask three questions about race and the university. They are: Has a racial ideology become included in the university’s structures and operations? If so, how did it happen? What are the consequences for knowledge creation and research ethics? The fact that I can ask them is guaranteed by two clauses in the Education Amendment Act 1989. Section 162(4)(a)(v) , commonly known as the ‘critic and conscience role’ and section 161(2)(a) – the academic freedom clause: ‘The freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions’ (section 161(2)(a). That such democratic ideals are in our legislation is something of which all New Zealanders can be justly proud. It is truly democracy in action. Imagine Gallileo or Spinoza or even Darwin in more recent times having such protection? The relationship of knowledge to power is a constant tension in a democracy1. It takes two forms. There is ‘powerful knowledge’ which seeks to explain the world using a discipline’s generative principles and concepts and is authorised by the discipline’s rules and procedures. There is also the ‘knowledge of the powerful’2 – ideologies that promote the beliefs and interests of various elite groups. The authority for this form of knowledge is the power of the group to control what is to be believed. Spinoza was well aware of the difference between powerful knowledge and knowledge of the powerful. ‘We see that nearly all men parade their own ideas as God’s Word, their chief aim being to compel others to think as they do’3. He understood that separating disciplinary knowledge from belief and ideology depends on who has authority over knowledge. Today I will discuss the example of research ethics requirements to argue that these demonstrate that we have forgotten the lesson from Spinoza. We have let into the university belief-­‐based ideological knowledge rather than the knowledge that begins with doubt, moves to a provisional truth, and then on to further doubt and inquiry – in 1
Rata, E. (2012). The Politics of Knowledge in Education, London & New York: Routledge. 2 For the development of the dyad ‘powerful knowledge’ and ‘knowledge of the powerful’ see Michael Young’s post-­‐1998 writings including Young, M. (2008). Bringing Back Knowledge In. London: Routledge. 3 Israel, J. (2001). Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity 1650–1750. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. P. 448. 2
other words ‘science’. The belief-­‐based knowledge that I will talk about goes by various names. As an epistemology it is called tikanga Maori, indigenous knowledge, kaupapa Maori, matauranga Maori, Maori ways of knowing and Maori-­‐centred knowledge-­‐creation4. It is now recognised as a ‘discipline’ with its own research methodology and has considerable influence on research at this university. University Research Ethics According to the University of Auckland’s research ethics manual5: 1. ‘Obligations and responsibilities toward Māori arise from the Treaty of Waitangi. These relate to the partnership embodied in Articles I and II, and to equity as outlined in Article III. Inherent in these two concepts are: a) respect shown by the researcher for cultural differences and ways of knowing.’ Here we see a number of the features that I will interrogate during this talk. At this stage I want to draw them to your attention. Note the words ‘obligation’ and ‘responsibilities’ with reference to the Treaty. Note also the taken-­‐for-­‐granted acceptance of a Treaty ‘partnership’. And also note the easy reference to ‘ways of knowing’ as though this is a clear and well-­‐understood concept. Most if all I draw your attention to the inclusion of the ubiquitous term ‘equity’ within this Treaty paragraph. 2. Again from the Manual: ‘If the research involves participants who are recruited because they are Māori (or the research involves a topic of particular interest to Māori) the Māori researcher should list his or her tribal affiliations.’ 3. The consultation requirement. According to the Manual ‘The key to achieving the respect, regard and reciprocity described in the Applicants‘ Manual and in the Guiding Principles lies in an appropriate consultation process for all research pertaining to Māori.’ Maori-­centred knowledge-­creation What is ‘Maori-­‐centred knowledge-­‐creation’ or ‘ways of knowing’? Why do I claim that it has no place in the university either as an epistemology or a methodology though I must add it does of course have a place as an object of study -­‐ this was what anthropology did. The purpose of tikanga Maori knowledge is to create the rationale for the political and economic interests of the iwi elite (a group I refer to in my writings as the neotribal corporate elite6). It is this self-­‐interested position which makes the knowledge an 4
Tertiary Framework (2003). Maori Tertiary Education Framework. A Report by the Maori Tertiary Reference Group. Ministry of Education. Wellington, November. Accessed 4 December 2009 URL http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/MaoriEducation/PolicyAndStrate
gy/MaoriTertiaryFramework.aspx 5 University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee. Applicants Manual. Updated March 2013. pp. 23-­‐24. 6
Rata, E. (2000). A Political Economy of Neotribal Capitalism, Lanham, Md and Oxford:
Lexington Books
3
ideology not a discipline. The claims it makes justify the idea of two separate peoples, a difference so primordial that separate leadership and separate political and economic arrangements appear to make sense. There are three claims that create this racial boundary: They are: 1. the logic of the gift 2. genealogical links to the traditional society, and 3. an irreducible relation between the knower and the known which makes the knowledge always subjective. I want to say a little about each claim in turn to show how they create two racially different ‘peoples’ from what is a much more complex and intertwined reality. They also create a deep and uncrossable divide between these two ‘peoples’. And there is an important reason for this strategy – one I move to in a later section. 1. The ‘logic of the gift’ is the idea that knowledge is produced for a reciprocal system. Such knowledge creates and justifies harmony and balance between humans and between human and non-­‐human forces of production. In contrast the ‘logic of the commodity’ is a system based on exploitative relations. This gives the indigenous episteme -­‐ ‘the knowledge of the gift’ -­‐ a considerable moral advantage. It is seen as an equalising force between people and is promoted as the original sustainable discourse. This adds scientific respectability to its moral superiority. 2. The second claim is the idea of an ever present genealogical tie between the ancestors and people today. The concept of ancestral forces guiding present-­‐day ideas and practices supports the idea of historical continuity between the traditional tribe and contemporary iwi. Both these claims are wrong. The traditional tribal economy with its redistributive economy was replaced by an accumulatory economy from quite early in the 19th century as Maori welcomed the wealth creating benefits of the new type of economy. Today’s iwi corporations are capitalist corporations like any other. The traditional tribal system was also replaced by democracy. The destruction of a status-­‐based society began when the British annexed New Zealand in 1840 and was completed when the 1852 Constitutional Act established the foundation for democratic institutions. The destruction of birth-­‐ascribed chiefly authority was the beginning of any chance of equality for slaves, and lower-­‐caste men and women. It was the reason many Maori, like ordinary people throughout the world, supported and continue to support democracy. 3. The third feature of the indigenous episteme rests on the idea of an irreducible relation between the knowledge producer and what is known. This means that knowledge is fixed permanently to its creator and can never be made objective and universalised. ‘Who knows’ becomes the authority for ‘what is known’. Rata, E. (2011). Encircling the Commons: Neotribal Capitalism in New Zealand Since 2000, Anthropological Theory. 11(3). 327 -­‐ 353. Rata, E. (2011). Discursive Strategies of the Maori Tribal Elite, Critique of Anthropology, 31(4). 359–380. 4
The social, not the academic, status of the knower is important. Here is an example from a popular research methods textbook7: Maori researchers are differentiated according to iwi [tribe], hapu [sub-­‐tribe], or whanau [extended family] links. Furthermore, age and gender may also be a factor in the research process. In terms of empowerment, it cannot be assumed that it is the researcher who is necessarily doing all the empowering. Powerful Knowledge In contrast to ideologies such as tikanga Maori, the powerful knowledge of science has these features. A note first – I use the term ‘science’ for all the disciplines, including the social sciences, arts and humanities, that have these features. 1. Science is objective and universalisable. The saying ‘a twenty-­‐year-­‐old mathematician can have twenty centuries of mathematics in his mind’8 applies to all powerful knowledge. 2. It is cumulative and develops as generative principles and concepts are built by generations of scientists to create each discipline’s ‘coalitions of minds’9 . 3. It is based on doubt, is provisional truth, and always ‘put on trial’10. 4. Those trials and testing occur according to the specific rules and procedures of the discipline. These rigorous procedures are science’s authority for its truth claims. The late historian, Peter Munz explained how kaupapa Maori and scientific scholarship serve two entirely different purposes. The former is ‘a belief system designed to bond people into a community, and whether or not it gives a true factual account is irrelevant. Scholarship and science . . . are based on the application of unrestricted criticism and scrutiny to all beliefs, especially those alleged to be taboo. Its purpose is simply to obtain the best possible knowledge of the world’11. The university is, or should be, the public arena of collective judgements about truth claims. That it is compromised can be seen in the examples I provide. Race ideology in the university In order to explain how belief or ideological knowledge has gained a strong foothold in the University of Auckland I need to return to the Education Act, this time to another clause. In the same Education Act we find that it is the duty of University Councils to 7
Jahnke, H., & Taiapa, J. (1999). Maori research. In C. Davidson & M. Tolich (Eds.), Social science research in New Zealand, many paths to understanding (pp. 39–50). Auckland: Longman. p. 48 8 Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity. P. 40 9 Collins, R. (2000). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 7. 10 Habermas, J. (2001). Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. In S. Seidman & J. C. Alexander, The new social theory reader, contemporary debates (pp. 31–38). London: Routledge. 11 Munz, P. (1999). Open and closed research. In New Zealand Books, 9(5), 4–6. 5
‘acknowledge the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ (Section 181(b]). ‘Acknowledge’ – a benign term which hardens into the ‘obligation’ and ‘commitment’ from the 1990s and underpins not only the university’s research ethics requirements but practices throughout the university. We see this in the recent advertisement for an academic in the School of Population Health. ‘The University is committed to meeting its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and achieving equity outcomes for staff and students’. ‘Commitment’ and ‘obligation’ are enforced through compliance and auditing practices. In the Faculty of Education lecturers completing reviews of their teaching courses must answer the question: ‘How does the course address Treaty of Waitangi obligations?’ At this point the university’s ‘commitment’ in a Treaty ‘obligation’ comes directly up against the democratic clauses in the Education Act. The myth of Treaty biculturalism meets the science of the university. It appears that Treaty biculturalism has won out but this does not need to be the case. Ideologies close down other ways of understanding and dealing with social problems. Their way is the only way. This has happened with Treaty settlements believed to be the only way to address Maori disadvantage. That there were and still are other ways is shut out of the ‘there is no alternative’ approach of Treaty discourse. The certainty of belief that makes ideologies so compelling is what makes them difficult to counter. However it can be done. Identifying what makes up an ideology and showing how it is a different form of knowledge from scientific knowledge is a good place to start – something I am doing today. This is made very difficult however because tikanga Maori ideology has got into the very place where powerful knowledge should reign supreme. The university is where ideologies should be studied as objects – as the mechanisms by which the powerful advance their interests but it has become the very place for the development of those interests. One could rightly say that tikanga Maori is the Trojan Horse of Treaty ideology. So the question is: How was this ideology included in the university in the first place? To understand this we should return to the two opposing concepts that are conflated in the Treaty ‘acknowledge’ clause. It was a clause designed to ensure equity for Maori – ‘equity’ -­‐ a universalist, human rights concept. But equity was to be achieved by recognising its recipients as a distinct ethnic or race group. Here is the fundamental contradiction. Equity and race are opposed concepts. The former cannot be achieved by recognising the latter. Indeed by attempting to do so the university has brought a racial ideology into its policies and practices. How did this happen? Why were equity and race-­‐based biculturalism conflated to mean the same thing? The concept of equity and that of biculturalism were developed at the same time and by the same people. It is not my intention tonight to discuss those people. I described them 6
in some detail in a recent speech I gave to the Fabian Society12. Suffice to say that many in the new professional class, both Maori and non-­‐Maori, genuinely believed and still believe that biculturalism would led to equity. The Shift to Race-­based Biculturalism However the shift from inclusive to exclusive biculturalism from the mid-­‐80s changed this socio-­‐political movement in fundamental ways, ways that have not produced equity for the disadvantaged Maori for whom biculturalism was intended. Out of the inclusive biculturalism designed to bring Maori culture into mainstream New Zealand life emerged a self-­‐interested group, one with ambitious political and economic interests and a brilliant strategy to achieve these ambitions. This neotribal elite as I call them have since proved unstoppable. Three strategic events turned these cultural leaders into the self-­‐interested elite. 1. The 1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act enabled grievance claims to be backdated to 1840. This produced a selective approach to historical research, one concerned to identify the inheritance to be claimed. Justice Sir Eddie Durie, the first Waitangi Tribunal Chair, was quite clear that the Tribunal’s history was to serve the political interests of retribalisation. The Tribunal’s research outcomes are determined by its political interests, an approach that is also seen in kaupapa Maori research. This is ‘knowledge of the powerful ‘history. It is not powerful historical knowledge. 2. The 1987 Court of Appeal decision introduced the terms ‘partnership’ and ‘principles’ to Treaty interpretation. They are used by the iwi elite to justify claims for major public resources and even, as is currently the case, to claim ‘co-­‐governance’. Iwi ambition for constitutional sovereignty should not be lightly disregarded given their steam roller success to date. 3. The 1998 High Court decision that ‘iwi’ means tribes existing and recognised in 1840 enabled a contemporary economic corporation to present itself as the inheritor of the traditional tribe. The Treaty serves as the document of inheritance – the ‘Will’ one may call it. The success of the iwi strategy means that New Zealand is confronted with deciding what political system it wants. We can have only one political structure if we are to remain a democracy. Democracy is integrated and coherent – it’s an all or nothing system. It’s not possible to have a ‘bit’ of democracy. It’s a system that allows people to identify freely as they wish – as a race member, as a religious follower, as a member of a culture . . . but it doesn’t allow for different governance arrangements or different types of political status. We have one political status only – that of citizen and one set of governing arrangements – parliament, the state, and the rule of law. These elements can’t be shared with those of another political system. 12
http://www.fabians.org.nz/administrator/components/com_civicrm/civicrm/extern/url.php?u
=4528&qid=82650 7
Treaty biculturalism has, since the 1980s, promoted the idea that two political authorities, iwi and the government, are possible, even desirable. To make this idea ‘stick’, people must believe that Maori are a separate, racially distinct group forever tied to their historical origins and entitled to the inheritance of that genetic history. If this is the case for one group, then why are other groups not understood in the same way? How are others able to separate from the past? Why do we not all claim political status according to genetic ancestry and historical experiences? We don’t because it would fix us forever in permanent race groups – forever locked into an unchangeable past and unable to move forward. This is the tragic state of Middle Eastern politics. However iwi leaders have no choice but to base their claims for economic wealth and political power on racial criteria. The justification for their existence is that they represent a people whom no other New Zealand leader can represent – you have to have the ancestry/ the race to be in the group. Despite the vulnerability of this Achilles Heel the iwi elite must push on. It is what all emergent elites do – blink and you are lost. Given their unchallenged success there is no reason that the next push forward – that for constitutional power -­‐ will not be as easily acquired as have all the other gains. However there are signs that some in the new professional class, both Maori and non-­‐
Maori, are becoming restless as they realise the deep-­‐seated contradiction between universal and race politics. There is growing unease – even anxiety about what Treaty biculturalism means for New Zealand’s democratic future. There are doubts about those who naively serve Treaty ideology; the politicians responsible for the 1985 Act, the judges responsible for the 1987 and 1998 court judgements; the academics who bought into cultural relativism at the height of postmodernism, and the educators who have sold biculturalism to two generations of children. The universal-­‐race contradiction also presents a fundamental dilemma for the neotribal elite. On the one hand the claims for its authority rest on the existence of the racially defined group that it leads. On the other hand, the acceptance of the elite’s leadership is recognised by those outside the group on the basis of claims for equity. What happens when universal equity meets exclusive race? This university provides an illustration. While the Treaty ‘acknowledgement’ clause set the ball rolling, it was the 2003 Maori Tertiary Framework that laid out the field. Although the policy document has never been prescriptive, such is the mistaken belief that exclusive biculturalism means the same as equity that the Framework is fully included in university’s life. The Framework has five guiding principles. Principle Two tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) is concerned with ‘supporting aspirations for Maori self-­‐determination, enabling provision by Maori and enshrining Maori ownership in and authority over tertiary education’. ‘The third principle, toi to mana, means empowering Maori to influence the tertiary system at all levels’13 . 13
Tertiary Framework 2003, p. 17. 8
The most significant recommendation is for the cultural production of indigenous knowledge. Priority Seven, ‘Maori-­‐centred knowledge-­‐creation’ includes the goals that: Maori guardianship of knowledge is recognised and embraced by the system and TEOs (and) ‘TEOs and government agencies support the development of Maori intellectual independence and Maori knowledge according to tikanga Maori’14. Priority Seven has been successfully implemented in the decade since this recommendation and is most clearly shown by the ethics requirements. The requirement in the Ethics Manual raises many questions, not least being -­‐ What if the research to be undertaken is critical of this interpretation of the Treaty? Would such research even get off the starting block? What are the effects of the direct inclusion of race in the reference to the researcher’s social status as the member of a race group? The phrase ‘or the research involves a topic of particular interest to Maori’ is somewhat of a loaded gun. What topic will not be of interest? The possible proliferation is endless. Who decides what topic is of interest to Maori? Which Maori is meant? – retribalised, non-­‐tribalised, one who takes a tikanga Maori approach, one who does not, one who identifies as Maori, or who doesn’t . . . The extent of consultancy may compromise the research. There is no question that ethical research must include full disclosure to participants but to give power over the research, including its findings, to those one is required to consult because they are Maori, is to move from ethics to politics, from creating powerful knowledge to the knowledge of the powerful. Conclusion What is to be done to restore powerful knowledge to its place as the purpose of the university? 1. Remove from legislation the Treaty clause requiring that universities have a duty to acknowledge the principles of the Treaty. 2. Remove from the university the policies and practices developed from the Maori Tertiary Framework 3. Remove Treaty provisions from research ethics procedures. Only in this way can the issue identified by Spinoza, namely, who has the authority over knowledge, be resolved in the interests of science not ideology. 14
Tertiary Framework 2003, p. 39.