New diversity, old anxieties in New Zealand: the complex identity politics and engagement of a settler society

Abstract

Superdiversity signals the common experience in many countries and cities of the enhanced levels of diversity that are associated with contemporary immigration, yet there are a range of permutations and possibilities. One example of superdiversity – that of a particular group of settler societies represented by New Zealand – is explored, as the colonization of indigenous peoples has occurred alongside a nation-building project that centres on mass immigration, and which in turn has been layered by a more recent immigrant recruitment project that ostensibly values immigrants for the skills that they contribute to economic development. Since the 1970s, there have been limited but still important concessions made in terms of diversity recognition and group rights. This article explores the nature of this settler society superdiversity and its politics.

Keywords:

• settler societies
• indigenous rights
• majority identities
• superdiversity

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Steve Vertovec, Fran Meissner, Trudie Cain and Robin Peace for comments on this paper, and to those who participated in the seminar on ‘Super-Diversity: Comparative Questions’ at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, 27–28 September 2012.

Notes

1. It should be acknowledged that historical nation building was ‘predicated on a continuous process of including or excluding populations from the national community through restricted modes of incorporation that couple sentiments of belonging’ to residency and racialized preferences (Fleras 2011, 8).

2. Indigenous peoples, so defined, have resisted being classified as a minority (Short 2007).

3. Tariana Turia, the co-leader of the Maori Party, a Member of Parliament and a Minister of the Crown, has said that the principles that derive from the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 between Maori and the Crown include:

themes of partnership, protection and participation; they represent the ultimate expression of good faith… The principles outline a prescription for a relationship which is central to our constitution; an exquisite blueprint for a nation in which kawanatanga [governance] and rangatiratanga [Maori control] sit alongside each other. There is a natural tension between these two forces which must be resolved. (Turia 2012, A13)

4. Joppke (2012, 10) somewhat dismissively refers to Canada's ‘virtuous circle of integration and selection’ and says that the country's ‘multicultural integration’ is muscular. But as Reitz (2012) points out, while immigrant selection is an important consideration, equally important is a shared belief that immigration represents an important national resource, hardly a feature of European examples of ‘muscular liberalism’.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Paul Spoonley

PAUL SPOONLEY is Distinguished Professor and Pro Vice-Chancellor of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Massey University.