A sociology ‘of’ or a sociology ‘for’ education? The New Zealand experience of the dilemma

Abstract

The sociology of education in New Zealand, as in other countries, is affected by the dilemma inherent to the discipline, namely: is it a sociology of education or a sociology for education? In this article I analyse three factors in which the dilemma is played out: ‘cultural oppositionism’ in the indigenous (kaupapa Maori) approach, critical policy research and the role of empirical research. I argue that a sociology for education is fundamentally weakened by its politicisation, a flaw not helped by the difficulties in drawing political goals from moral imperatives. In contrast a sociology of education, which uses the strengths of empirical research and theoretical analysis, offers the better hope of renewal for, what is, in New Zealand, a moribund discipline.

Keywords:

• sociology of education
• New Zealand
• realist sociology
• cultural politics
• policy analysis
• indigenous theory

Notes

1. Biculturalism is variously understood as a cultural relationship between Maori and pakeha (settler‐descendants of British origin), or between Maori and non‐Maori, or as a political relationship between the government and the tribes mandated by the contemporary interpretation of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi (Oliver 2001; Sharp 2002; Rata 2003, 2003, 2005).

2. New Zealand emphasises the idea of the social construction of ethnicity. For example, Statistics New Zealand (2005) defines ‘ethnicity [as] the ethnic groups or groups that people identify with or feel they belong to’ (1). The use of ‘ethnicity’ to replace ‘race’ was an attempt in the post‐1960s period to reject racism by rejecting the biological or genetic component attributed to race and to understand descent‐group identity in terms of socially constructed values, beliefs and practices alone. Terms such as ‘cultural affiliation’, ‘tribal affiliation’, ‘tribal identity’ and cultural identity’ are used to strengthen this social construction idea. However, socially constructed ethnicity still contain a genetic or biological component. Yinger (1985) regards ‘ethnicity’ as meaningless if it excludes the notion of group belonging that has a genetic or biological base. The concept of a group’s shared genetic heritage does not, of course, mean that ‘human races’ constitute distinct human populations. The low level of genetic variability and of structuring of the human species is incompatible with the existence of race as a biological entity (Pena 2005). But ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ still have conceptual validity as referents for a group’s shared genetic heritage – one that changes constantly as groups migrate and inter‐marry. Ironically the social construct concept actually works against its anti‐racial intention by maintaining a distinction between social groups that is located in a shared genetic heritage understood in primordial terms as unchanging.

3. I was secretary, then coordinator, of Te Runanga o Nga Kura Kaupapa Maori o Tamaki Makaurau, the main lobby group, from 1987 to 1991, the years of the campaign. The Runanga’s activities and strategies are documented in my masters and doctoral dissertations (Rata 1991, 1996).