Anne Salmond on the Treaty debate: Māori and Pākehā think differently

Expert opinion from University of Auckland - Waipapa Taumata Rau

In debates over Te Tiriti o Waitangi, different ways of understanding the world have created fundamental misunderstandings from the outset. It is not just a matter of two different texts written in two very different languages, English and Māori, but also very different habits of mind.

Different ways of thinking can put people at loggerheads, so they talk past each other – reasonable people who reason differently. This can create impasses that are almost intractable. Current discussions over Te Tiriti o Waitangi may be a case in point.

In a recent interview with the New Zealand Herald, David Seymour explained that his key objection to the current ‘principles’ of the Treaty of Waitangi is that they are ‘collectivist’ rather than ‘individualist,’ and refer to contracts ‘between groups of people, rather than upholding the rights of individuals, which is what you get from the Treaty itself.’

This reflects a kind of logic that is more common in European ways of thinking than it is in te ao Māori. Neo-liberal theories that focus on the rights of individuals trace back at least as far as the 16th Century, when the French philosopher Rene Descartes famously declared, “Cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am.”

‘Cartesian dualism,’ as it is called, makes a radical division between the thinking self and the material world, res cogitans and res extensa, mind and matter, subject and object, culture and nature. This kind of logic, based on binary oppositions, organises reality into entities that are radically distinct from each other, ordered into different kinds of arrays.

From Cartesian dualism springs Linnaean taxonomy, that organises all life forms into gridded hierarchies, the origin of scientific racism; cartography that grids the world by latitude and longitude; censuses and surveys that sort people into distinct categories and count them; corporate hierarchies and bureaucratic silos; nation states and cost-benefit calculating individuals.

These are cultural artefacts, based on a thinking self that organises a detached world from an ‘eye of God’ perspective. It is not difficult to see the links between this and imperial habits of mind.

While analytic logic is based on binary oppositions, relational logic works differently. Here, relationships are all important, and generative. In te ao Māori, for instance, the world is organised through whakapapa into complementary pairs that endlessly create new forms of life, from the aeons of Pō and Kore to Ranginui and Papatūanuku onwards. Rather than static silos, this orders reality into dynamic relational networks, expressed in a language of kinship.

Relational logic is not culturally restricted, but can also be found in European ways of thinking – Gaelic philosophy, for instance; or the German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt’s idea of a ‘wonderful web of organic life’, ‘animated by one breath – from pole to pole, one life is poured on rocks, plants, animals, even into the swelling breast of man;’ the Scottish Enlightenment or Charles Darwin’s ‘tree of life.’ In contemporary times, these have their reflexes in ecological thinking, complexity theory and the World Wide Web, for example.

Rather than arrays of bounded entities (grids and hierarchies, for instance), this kind of relational logic orders the world into dynamic networks, animated by reciprocal exchanges – very like whakapapa, in fact.

Not surprisingly, given the ubiquity of relational thinking in te reo, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the document in Māori signed by the rangatira and the representatives of Queen Victoria in 1840, is a relational document. It is neither ‘individualist’ nor ‘collectivist,’ but a kin-based combination of both, expressed in the language of chiefly gift exchange.

The preamble begins by identifying the key parties – ‘Victoria, the Queen of England,’ ‘the rangatira,’ and the ‘hapu [kin groups] of New Zealand.’

In the first Ture (article) of Te Tiriti, the rangatira give (tuku) to the Queen of England absolutely and forever all the governance (Kawanatanga) of their lands.

In the second article, the Queen of England ratifies and agrees with the rangatira, the hapu and all the inhabitants of New Zealand to the tino rangatiratanga (absolute chieftainship) of their lands, dwelling places and all their taonga or ancestral treasures.

In the third article of Te Tiriti, in exchange for the agreement to the governance of the Queen, the Queen of England promises to care for all the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand (nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani), and gives (tuku) to them all the tikanga (right ways of doing things) exactly equal (rite tahi) to her subjects, the inhabitants of England (nga tangata o Ingarani).

Here, in exchange for the gift of kawanatanga, the Queen gives the indigenous persons of New Zealand all the tikanga absolutely equal with her subjects, the people of England. In this arrangement, the mana of all parties is upheld.

In Te Tiriti o Waitangi, then, both individuals and groups are important; and through whakapapa, individuals and their kin groups are inextricably intertwined. At the same time, hapū enjoyed considerable autonomy, and this is also a key to understanding Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Each rangatira who signed Te Tiriti reserved the right to make their own decisions about relationships with the British Crown. In the Northern and the Land Wars, for example, some hapū fought alongside British troops, while others fought against them.

While early settlers constantly referred to ‘the Maori race,’ then, it was a long time before hapū saw themselves in that way; and today, the independence of different kin groups is still insisted upon, and cherished.

Like an ‘individualist’ reading of Te Tiriti, a ‘collectivist’ reading – one that defines Te Tiriti as ‘a partnership between two races,’ or ‘between Maori and Pakeha’ (a classic case of Cartesian dualism), as in the 1987 ‘Lands’ case, for instance – is mistaken, ignoring this fundamental diversity of interests and views.

In such an analysis, one can begin to glimpse why those who think ecologically (in the Green Party, for instance) might grasp Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a relational document, given the resonance between whakapapa and ecological ideas; or why neo-liberal thinkers (Act, for instance) might struggle to reconcile this with individual rights.

One can also see how analytic logic might lead reasonable people to think of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a partnership between two ‘races,’ despite the entangling of whakapapa lines in New Zealand over the past 200 years; or how those accustomed to corporate hierarchies and bureaucratic silos might suppose that a long history of promises broken, mana trampled and relationships betrayed can be resolved by top-down decision-making.

Above all, though, the challenge is to understand Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its own terms. This is the document that was signed by the representatives of Queen Victoria and the various rangatira in 1840. It promised to uphold the mana of the rangatira and the hapū, and to forge relationships based on equality among the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand and their tikanga, and the incoming settlers – promises that are still to be honoured.

The Waitangi Tribunal has done its best to remedy past breaches of trust, but in the end, broken relationships can’t be healed by awards of property and cash. Manaakitanga – giving mana to others, is the mark of a rangatira, and that is what is needed, although it seems to be in short supply at present, especially in Parliament. This is putting the mana of kawanatanga – the governance of our country – at risk.

Any good relationship requires mutual respect and reciprocal exchanges – tuku atu, tuku mai. If it is possible to see that reasonable people may reason differently, this might help to bring dignity and honour to our debates over Te Tiriti o Waitangi, allowing our leaders to exhibit manaakitanga – generosity of spirit, rather than rancorous brawling.

I have never heard so many Kiwis express dismay at what they see as a failure of the democratic process as at present, as leaders from minor parties (who may have powerful backers, but relatively few votes) insult the goodwill and intelligence of the electorate by trying to impose policies for which they do not enjoy a mandate – a referendum on the Treaty, for instance, or repealing anti-smoking laws, engaging in climate denial or threatening to mine the conservation estate.

The new Prime Minister must step up, and stop this hubristic posturing. As Pita Tipene, Chair of the Waitangi National Trust, has said about leadership under Te Tiriti, “A rangatira is a person who weaves people together. The rangatira is not above the hapū. The rangatira must listen to the people, in accordance with tikanga. If they do not listen they will be cast aside.” Indeed, and the sooner the better. Wise words, and good counsel for a new leader.