Anthropos 90.1995: 1-16
Redefining Ideology in Time
Maori Crossroads between a Timeless Past and a New Future
Toon van Meijl
Abstract. - In this article it is argued that a broadening of
classic notions of ideology as false consciousness does not
necessarily have to take place at the expense of the concept’s
critical connotations if ideology is conceived of as a generative
and dynamic dimension of social practice, the multiple values
of which are continuously being manipulated to serve political
and other strategic interests. The value of the theoretical ap
proach advocated in this article will be demonstrated by means
of an ethnographic analysis of the “reinvention” of tradition
among the New Zealand Maori and its political and ideological
goal of justifying demands for Maori self-determination in the
future. For the Maori the past serves as a symbol of survival and
continuity, but with the aim of discontinuing and transforming
their present predicament through the implementation of tribal
development programmes. The paradoxical coexistence of a
discourse of tradition and a discourse of development may be
resolved in terms of their common ideological matrix. [New
Zealand, Maori, ideology, signs, politics of tradition]
Toon van Meijl holds a B. A. (Hons.) and an M. A. (Hons.)
from the University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and a Ph. D.
from the Australian National University. He conducted field
work among the Tainui Maori people in New Zealand from
October 1982 until August 1983, and from September 1987
until December 1988. At present he is holding a postdoctoral
research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts
and Sciences, while he is also Academic Secretary of the Centre
for Pacific Studies. - Publications: cf. References Cited.
Over the past two decades the New Zealand Maori
people have revived, if not “reinvented,” many
dimensions of their traditional culture, particularly
its expressive aspects, such as language, ceremo
nies, crafts, songs, and dances, but also forms of
political organization. At the same time, the in
digenous people of New Zealand have launched
large-scale development programmes in order to
improve their living standards and, ultimately, to
attain in the future statistical equality with the
dominant population of European New Zealanders.
New Zealanders of European origin often argue
that Maori traditions constitute an insurmountable
impediment to the modern goal of development. In
consequence, it is widely believed in New Zealand
that Maori people have to make a choice between
their - primitive - past and a - civilized - future,
but although Maori concerns with both the past and
the future might initially seem paradoxical, Maori
discourses of tradition cannot be seen in isolation
of Maori discourses of development.
After a decade of scholarship on the “politics
of tradition” in the Pacific (e.g., Keesing and Ton-
kinson 1982; Linnekin and Poyer 1990; Jolly and
Thomas 1992; White and Lindstrom 1993; van der
Grijp and van Meijl 1993; Otto 1994), the political
implications of the revitalization and reconstruc
tion of Maori traditions have become obvious:
traditional culture is particularly reconstituted in
order to justify growing demands for autonomous
Maori development programmes and, ultimately,
for the recognition of Maori sovereignty (van Meijl
1990). The main aim of Maori aspirations to Maori
self-determination is to regain in the future the
political, economic, and cultural autonomy which
the indigenous people of New Zealand lost in the
course of colonial history. The strategy for achiev
ing an independent future, however, is justified
as well as outlined in terms of Maori traditions.
This is undoubtedly the result of Maori encapsu
lation within the New Zealand liberal-democratic
nation-state, which forces Maori people to vali
date their pursuit of sovereignty in a culturally
specific manner. Since the sharing of a common
colonial past plays an important role in uniting
Maori people from different tribal backgrounds
vis-à-vis their European counterparts, the desire
to manage their attempts to reacquire control of
their own destiny is substantiated by means of a
discourse of tradition.
Interestingly, the relationship between the fu
ture-oriented discourse of development and the
past-oriented discourse of tradition is rather am
biguous and evokes at least two paradoxes. Firstly,
the need for an independent path into the future is
justified on the basis of a different past, but views
of the desired future state are largely based on the
present condition of the European population of
New Zealand, the only difference being control in