An ‘inclusive’ society: a ‘leap forward’ for Māori in New Zealand?

Abstract

Existing literature, which has emerged largely from Europe and Britain, suggests that the concepts of social exclusion and inclusion are fundamentally limited when accounting for ‘difference’. This paper extends this literature by considering the way in which a social exclusion/inclusion discourse has played out in a ‘white settler’ society where the ‘difference’ embodied by the highly ‘excluded’ indigenous population is a central concern for social policy. The paper argues that the goal of an ‘inclusive society’, which has framed New Zealand social policy since 1999, promotes an equal opportunity approach that sits in tension with the specific needs and rights of MØaori as indigenous peoples and partners in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The ambiguous consequences of this goal highlight the need for settler societies to develop policy that reflects their own socio-political circumstances, rather than simply adopt policy discourses that are popular internationally.

Beyond Transformation and Regulation: Productive Tensions and the Analytics of Inclusion

“…Curtis (2003), for example, argues that partnerships and collaborative relationships between community and the government for social—advocated strongly by the Fifth Labour government—in Aotearoa/New Zealand are simply an extension of neo‐liberal market relations into new arenas. The fact that excluded groups—and particularly those that do not want to be a part of the mainstream—are often seen as a threat to social cohesion (Humpage 2006; Peace 2001) lends credence to this reading of inclusion.…”

“…Since inclusion is always conducted in the “present,” to create a “future” story, the “past,” or situated local conditions and memories, are possibly subject to erasure (Stubbs 2002). Humpage (2006) argues in this regard that European discourses of inclusion/exclusion come into tension with and work to override Maori discourses of the Treaty of Waitangi, such that Maori difference becomes seen as a special treatment discriminatory of other groups in society. Memories of specific local political economies and histories of colonization—which provide the basis and justifications of particular claims against state and society—can thus be lost.…”

“…On the other hand, practices of inclusion that operate at the level of the collective risk solidifying difference and freezing identity. Groups may be homogenized in political and policy imaginaries (Humpage 2006). In addition, not only groups but also the issues they bring forward may be ghettoized, producing a situation where only representatives of particular groups are held responsible or have the legitimacy to act as spokespersons for issues related to those groups (Dobrowolsky 2001).…”

“…Taken‐for‐granted means of communication are called into question to create genuinely inclusive democratic spaces (Fraser 1997; Lister 2007). Humpage (2006) thus criticizes practices in Aotearoa/New Zealand that enjoin Maori to include themselves via participation in dominant (Pakeha/European) forms of inclusive activity. Such practices, in her view, reflect “a re‐embedding, legitimating, securing phase in contemporary liberal hegemony, rather than a new political order that redistributes power and resources more fairly” (237).…”

“…ensuring that all people, especially the marginalized, participate as valued members of society” (210). In the second story, of regulation and control, discourses and practices of inclusion are theorized as representative of an expansion of neo‐liberal forms of governance (Humpage 2006, 2008; Porter and Craig 2004; Roelvink and Craig 2005). The emergence and dissemination of inclusion is here portrayed as fueled by the twinned fears of societal dissolution and desires to deepen a universalizing liberal order.…”