Tangata Ngākau: Māori Boys and Masculinity in the Writing of Bruce Stewart, Witi Ihimaera, and Whiti Hereaka

<p>This thesis surveys a selection of writing by Bruce Stewart, Witi Ihimaera, and Whiti Hereaka, and considers how these texts represent varying modes of masculinity available to and expressed by Māori boys and young men. Whilst the three authors present starkly different characters, all of these characters challenge pre-existing claims about Māori men and masculinity propagated by earlier, predominantly Pākehā writers. The first chapter focuses on the collection Tama and Other Stories by Bruce Stewart (1989). Many of the characters in this collection feel pressured to be tough and stoic, but I argue that such pressures are shown to come largely from Pākehā father figures. The modes of masculinity that the boys either portray or wish to portray are much less focused on stoicism, aggression, and physicality than what they see from their fathers. I suggest that Stewart sees instruction in tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori as useful if not essential for young Māori men to escape the pressure of oppressive colonial narratives about Māori masculinity. The second chapter discusses Witi Ihimaera’s novel Bulibasha (1994). In contrast to Stewart’s stories, Bulibasha presents a young boy largely isolated from Pākehā society, but I argue that this does not mean that he is free from the influence of Pākehā masculinity. The novel presents many different expressions of masculinity but only those that are influenced by colonial narratives and which reinforce Pākehā hegemony seem to prosper. Such colonial narratives and influences are arguably less visible than they are in Tama and Other Stories, but this does not make them any less insidious nor damaging to the men in Bulibasha. I suggest that spaces where Pākehā masculinity is less dominant, men are shown to be less stoic, domineering, and oppressive. Likewise, characters who appear to be more immersed in te ao Māori also seem to promote a greater sense of balance and equity between men and women. The final chapter looks at the novel Bugs by Whiti Hereaka (2013). The influence of Pākehā societal norms and narratives on Māori masculinity is shown to be more acute in the setting of this text than in the mid-20th century setting of Tama and Other Stories and Bulibasha. Characters in Stewart’s writing are able to construct their own decolonised spaces where Māori masculinity can be expressed, whilst Ihimaera’s characters struggle to avoid colonial influences even in a predominantly Māori community. By contrast, Hereaka shows characters who feel the full effect of urbanisation and the inherent marginalisation of te ao Māori. For characters in the urban 21st century setting of Bugs, connection to te ao Māori and the ability to access knowledge of tikanga Māori is severely restricted. Whilst Stewart’s and Ihimaera’s characters had access to different visions of Māori masculinity, and varying access to te ao Māori, characters in Bugs are more isolated. I argue that because of this, their ability to reject Pākehā narratives is more limited, and after rejecting the influence of Pākehā masculinity it is not always obvious what alternatives are available. Throughout this thesis deference is given to critics who write from a decolonising and kaupapa Māori perspective. In particular, the works of Brendan Hokowhitu on Māori masculinities, Ani Mikaere on gender in Māori society, Linda Tuhiwai Smith on decolonizing methodologies, Elizabeth Kerekere on sexuality, gender, and Māori, and Belinda Borell on cultural identity and urban Māori, inform the reading and analysis of each of the texts.</p>

Tangata Ngākau: Māori Boys and Masculinity in the Writing of Bruce Stewart, Witi Ihimaera, and Whiti Hereaka

<p>This thesis surveys a selection of writing by Bruce Stewart, Witi Ihimaera, and Whiti Hereaka, and considers how these texts represent varying modes of masculinity available to and expressed by Māori boys and young men. Whilst the three authors present starkly different characters, all of these characters challenge pre-existing claims about Māori men and masculinity propagated by earlier, predominantly Pākehā writers. The first chapter focuses on the collection Tama and Other Stories by Bruce Stewart (1989). Many of the characters in this collection feel pressured to be tough and stoic, but I argue that such pressures are shown to come largely from Pākehā father figures. The modes of masculinity that the boys either portray or wish to portray are much less focused on stoicism, aggression, and physicality than what they see from their fathers. I suggest that Stewart sees instruction in tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori as useful if not essential for young Māori men to escape the pressure of oppressive colonial narratives about Māori masculinity. The second chapter discusses Witi Ihimaera’s novel Bulibasha (1994). In contrast to Stewart’s stories, Bulibasha presents a young boy largely isolated from Pākehā society, but I argue that this does not mean that he is free from the influence of Pākehā masculinity. The novel presents many different expressions of masculinity but only those that are influenced by colonial narratives and which reinforce Pākehā hegemony seem to prosper. Such colonial narratives and influences are arguably less visible than they are in Tama and Other Stories, but this does not make them any less insidious nor damaging to the men in Bulibasha. I suggest that spaces where Pākehā masculinity is less dominant, men are shown to be less stoic, domineering, and oppressive. Likewise, characters who appear to be more immersed in te ao Māori also seem to promote a greater sense of balance and equity between men and women. The final chapter looks at the novel Bugs by Whiti Hereaka (2013). The influence of Pākehā societal norms and narratives on Māori masculinity is shown to be more acute in the setting of this text than in the mid-20th century setting of Tama and Other Stories and Bulibasha. Characters in Stewart’s writing are able to construct their own decolonised spaces where Māori masculinity can be expressed, whilst Ihimaera’s characters struggle to avoid colonial influences even in a predominantly Māori community. By contrast, Hereaka shows characters who feel the full effect of urbanisation and the inherent marginalisation of te ao Māori. For characters in the urban 21st century setting of Bugs, connection to te ao Māori and the ability to access knowledge of tikanga Māori is severely restricted. Whilst Stewart’s and Ihimaera’s characters had access to different visions of Māori masculinity, and varying access to te ao Māori, characters in Bugs are more isolated. I argue that because of this, their ability to reject Pākehā narratives is more limited, and after rejecting the influence of Pākehā masculinity it is not always obvious what alternatives are available. Throughout this thesis deference is given to critics who write from a decolonising and kaupapa Māori perspective. In particular, the works of Brendan Hokowhitu on Māori masculinities, Ani Mikaere on gender in Māori society, Linda Tuhiwai Smith on decolonizing methodologies, Elizabeth Kerekere on sexuality, gender, and Māori, and Belinda Borell on cultural identity and urban Māori, inform the reading and analysis of each of the texts.</p>

Community-Based Participatory Research on Diet and Activity With an Indigenous Pueblo Community

Tribal Critical Race Theory (Brayboy, 2005) supports the use of decolonizing methodologies such as Community-Based Participatory Research when collaborating with Indigenous communities. This paper highlights the underlying processes in working with a Pueblo community on an intergenerational health project. Indigenous participants included 16 Piro Pueblo individuals who collaborated on a project examining healthy diets and activity in their community. The project involved providing information on the importance of activity and healthy eating of traditional foods to promote healthy living. Thematic analysis of open-ended questions exploring the role of culture in food and activity yielded important themes of gathering, resilience, history, honoring ancestors at mealtime, cultural ways, and activities such as dancing and drumming. The results suggest that projects addressing diet and activity collaborate to ensure cultural values, e.g., connectedness, cultural ways, e.g., gathering, dancing, and Indigenous knowledge are represented in the project and viewed through an Indigenous lens.

“People Are Demanding Justice”: Pandemics, Protests, and Remote Learning Through the Eyes of Immigrant Youth of Color

This paper examines a youth oral history project conducted by/with/for immigrant youth of color and educators. Designed as a longitudinal five year project of critical participatory action research and youth oral histories, we sought initially to document generational experiences of schooling inequity, aggressive policing, housing precarity and immigration struggles. As a research collective we then confronted and chose to interrogate how COVID19, uprisings and activism, and remote learning affect youth of color. In our analysis we “discovered” the power of culturally responsive and sustaining education as a framework to cultivate critical consciousness and civic engagement. With an epistemic commitment to “no research on us without us,” decolonizing methodologies and research for social action, we review in this article our theoretical frameworks, epistemic commitments, methodologies, our ethical praxis and our evidence-based activism, as we explore the intimate details of critical participation as core to anti-racist developmental science.

Decolonizing Research Ethics

Globally, there is widespread agreement that research involving indigenous peoples must be conducted with the consent, consultation, or collaboration of communities. However, there are practical challenges to implementing this ideal. This chapter critically engages with scholarship on research ethics in relation to indigenous communities, focusing on the challenges inherent in the global movement toward decolonizing methodologies and indigenous governance of research. The chapter presents recommendations for a decolonizing approach to research ethics. It emphasizes that research institutions need to take seriously that an indigenous group has the right to say “no” to research that has been deemed ethical by an institutional research ethics board. The authors argue further that this requires attention to the “politics of risk,” including the ways in which collective identity and research risks are co-constructed.

Positionality and self-reflexivity: Backyard qualitative research in Palestine

Conducting qualitative, critical ethnographical research on disability in Palestine requires deep self-reflexivity, exploring positionality while claiming authorship. As a Palestinian conducting backyard research, I explored ways to conceptualize disability in light of language and macro factors related to Israeli occupation practices. While conducting interviews and observing, I learned to appreciate the advantages of being an insider and an outsider, and to be aware of the disadvantages of being both. Positionality and self-reflexivity helped me focus on my participants’ voices. Through exploring disability in Palestinian higher education, I realized I was not only the representative of the collective knowledge, but I was also reflecting on how my research was creating indigenous discourse and decolonizing methodologies that challenged being politically correct. This was especially true when using certain acceptable language and content in Western academic discourse. Positionality and reflection on my own feelings, as an outsider and an insider at the same time, were an essential part of the research, especially when participants were addressing questions on lived experiences, content, language, and concepts to use when describing macro and micro-related factors causing physical disabilities.

A Weapon and a Tool

This article uses Indigenous decolonizing methodologies and Critical Race Theory (CRT) as methodological and theoretical frameworks to address colonial and racialized concerns about archival description; to argue against notions of diversity and inclusion in archival descriptive practices; and to make recommendations for decolonizing description and embracing redescription as liberatory archival praxis. First, we argue that extant descriptive practices do not diversify archives. Rather, we find that descriptive work that isolates and scatters aims to erase the identifiable existence of unique Indigenous voices. Next, we argue that while on one hand, the mass digitization of slavery-era records holds both the promise of new historical knowledge and of genealogical reconstruction for descendants of enslaved peoples, on the other hand, this trend belies a growing tendency to reinscribe racist ideologies and codify damaging ideas about how we organize and create new knowledge through harmful descriptive practices. Finally, working specifically against the rhetoric of diversity and inclusion, we challenge the ways archives claim diverse representation by uncritically describing records rooted in generational trauma, hatred, and genocide, and advocate for developing and employing decolonizing and redescriptive practices to support an archival praxis rooted in justice and liberation, rather than more palatable (and less effective) notions of “diversity and inclusion”.

Decolonizing Methodologies in Qualitative Research: Creating Spaces for Transformative Praxis

Though there is no standard model or practice for what decolonizing research methodology looks like, there are ongoing scholarly conversations about theoretical foundations, principal components, and practical applications. However, as qualitative researchers, we think it is important to provide tangible ways to incorporate decolonial learning into our research methodology and overall practice. In this paper, we draw on theories of decolonization and exemplars from the literature to propose four practices that can be used by qualitative researchers: (1) exercising critical reflexivity, (2) reciprocity and respect for self-determination, (3) embracing “Other(ed)” ways of knowing, and (4) embodying a transformative praxis. At this moment of our historical trajectory, it is a moral imperative to embrace decolonizing approaches when working with populations oppressed by colonial legacies.