Anarchist-Communism and Mutual Aid: The revolutionary thought of Peter Kropotkin

Yet another university essay. Footnotes aren’t in this post, so if anyone wants to know where something is from either work it out yourselves from the bibliography at the bottom, or ask in a comment

Anarchist-Communism and Mutual Aid: The revolutionary thought of Peter Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin combined a lifelong passion for revolutionary working class politics with scientific work in the fields of geography, zoology and evolutionary biology. In the field of politics, he is known as one of the founding figures of the anarchist-communist school of thought, while in evolutionary science his theory of mutual aid as a factor in evolution continues to wield influence today. While Kropotkin engaged in both the political and the scientific arenas, the two mostly remained separate – other anarchists of the time paid far more attention to his political works such as The Conquest of Bread and Field, Factories and Workshops than they did his scientific works like Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Likewise, Kropotkin’s fellow scientists predominantly did not adopt anarchist-communist politics. This essay will examine the history of anarchist-communist politics and of the concept of mutual aid, and discuss some areas where they overlap and the theory of mutual aid can be used to support anarchist-communism.

Kropotkin and the development of anarchist-communism

Anarchist-communist politics stress “egalitarianism and the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, the abolition of capitalism and money, and the collective production and distribution of wealth by means of voluntary associations”.1 The anarchist-communist Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement defines an anarchist-communist society as one where “society would be run by a federation of workplace and community councils, with everyone having a say in decisions that affect them. Resources and property would be communally owned and controlled by everyone. Production would be geared to satisfying everyone’s needs, people would give voluntarily according to their ability, and produce would be distributed freely according to need.”2 Along with figures such as the Frenchman Joseph Déjacque and Italians Carlo Cafiero and Errico Malatesta, Kropotkin was an important early theorist of anarchist-communism.

Prior to the rise of anarchist-communism, the dominant strain of thought amongst anarchists was collectivist anarchism, based primarily on the work of theorists and activists such as Mikhail Bakunin and James Guillaume. Anarchist-communism primarily differed with collectivist anarchism over the issue of money in a post revolutionary society. While both collectivists and communists support the socialisation of the means of production, collectivists “express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself.”3 Iain McKay notes that

while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers’ associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” They just disagree on how quickly this will come about.4

Anarchist-communists such as Kropotkin saw collectivist anarchism as fundamentally flawed. In What Is Anarchism?, Alexander Berkman noted that anarchist collectivism “begins by abolishing private ownership of the means of production and immediately reverses itself by returning to the system of remuneration according to work performed which means the re-introduction of inequality.”5 In contrast, “The abolition of wage labour is central to anarchist communism … Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person’s economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations.”6 Anarchist-communism, therefore, can surmised as boiling down to one simple concept: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. From there, all that stands in the way (the state, capitalism, racism, sexism etc.) must be opposed.

Kropotkin’s major works on anarchist-communism are The Conquest of Bread, a collection of essays first published in French in two anarchist journals that Kropotkin edited, and Fields, Factories and Workshops: or Industry Combined with Agriculture and Brain Work with Manual Work, also a collection of essays. The Conquest of Bread consists of a series of arguments against capitalism and the state, and for anarchist-communism. In it, Kropotkin states that a tendency towards anarchism exists in all societies, noting that “Thus we find a tendency, eminently communistic, springing up on all sides, and in various guises, in the very heart of theoretically individualist societies.”7 Fields, Factories and Workshops, meanwhile, is a hypothetical examination of some of the ways in which an anarchist-communist society might organise itself, and its production and distribution. Kropotkin argues that scientific progress has given the working class and peasantry glimpses of possibility of a better future, and that these victories “been won by the obscure tillers of the soil, from whose hands greedy States, land lords and middlemen snatch the fruit of their labour even before it is ripe; by obscure teachers who only too often fall crushed under the weight of Church, State, commercial competition, inertia of mind and prejudice.”8

Mutual aid and evolution

Peter Kropotkin based his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution on his studies of wildlife in Eastern Siberia and Northern Manchuria. While there, he noticed that

even in those few spots where animal life teemed in abundance, I failed to find — although I was eagerly looking for it — that bitter struggle for the means of existence, among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant characteristic of struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution.9

Kropotkin was not the first to suggest that mutual aid amongst animals was a contributing factor to the evolutionary process. Mutual aid was, in the 19th century, a relatively common position amongst Russian naturalists, including Nikolai D. Nozhin, who “argued that intraspecific relations were normally characterised, not by competition, but by mutual aid.”10

Iain McKay notes that Kropotkin’s work was aimed at “rebutting the misuse of evolutionary theory to justify the status quo, but its synthesis of zoological, anthropological, historical and sociological data achieved far more and, consequently, its influence is great.”11 That the book had great influence is further reinforced by Lee Alan Dugatkin, Professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Louisville, who writes that “[i]t is arguable that of all the books on co-operation written by biologists, Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid had the most profound affect on biologists, social scientists, and laymen alike.”12

Amongst many biologists, Kropotkin’s ideas still hold sway today. Stephen J Gould, the noted evolutionary biologist and science historian, states that he “would hold that Kropotkin’s basic argument is correct. Struggle does occur in many modes, and some lead to cooperation among members of a species as the best pathway to advantage for individuals. If Kropotkin overemphasized mutual aid, most Darwinians in Western Europe had exaggerated competition just as strongly.”13

Mutual aid and anarchism

While Mutual Aid was not as widely read amongst anarchists as his political work, Kropotkin believed that his scientific work gave a powerful basis to his political work. Anarchists have used the term mutual aid to describe the social relations they wish to see replace capitalism, for example:

Mutual aid is a term used to describe interactions based on cooperation rather than competition. Under capitalism, we are compelled to compete with each other to survive – for jobs, for property and for friendships. While capitalism demands we ask why we should help someone, mutual aid encourages us to ask why not.14

In line with his anarchism, Kropotkin believed that mutual aid could not exist between classes. He asked rhetorically “[w]hat solidarity can exist between the capitalist and the worker he exploits? Between the head of an army and the soldier? Between the governing and the governed?”15 McKay argues that Mutual Aid is still an important work for anarchists as “many of the justifications for capitalism (on the right) and for state intervention (on the left) retain some traces of the old Social Darwinian rationale he combated in the 19th century. “16

Conclusion

Kropotkin’s work on political theory played a key role in the development of the mass anarchist-communist movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. His position amongst anarchists may be unparalleled, with Bakunin being the only possible exception. Likewise, his scientific work on mutual aid is still seen as important, and while it is often minimised by those who talk of Darwin’s theories, Kropotkin’s work is undoubtedly still an influence on modern evolutionary biologists. While Mutual Aid did not necessarily influence anarchist theory, it provided it with a further scientific backing, perhaps increasing its legitimacy in the eyes of some.

Bibliography

Anarchist Federation, ‘Anarchist communism – an introduction’, http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction (28 September 2009).

Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement, ‘Aims & Principles’, 2009, http://awsm.org.nz/? page_id=14 (28 September 2009).

Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement, An Anarchist-Communist Reader (Wellington: Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement, 2008), p. 5.

Berkman, Alexander, What Is Anarchism? (Oakland: AK Press, 2003), p.230.

Dugatkin, Lee Alan, Cooperation Among Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 8.

Gould, Stephen Jay, ‘Kropotkin was no crackpot’, 1997, http://libcom.org/library/kropotkin-was-no-crackpot (28 September 2009).

Kropotkin, Peter, ‘Fields, Factories and Workshops: or Industry Combined with Agriculture and Brain Work with Manual Work: Chapter 9: Conclusion’, 1912, http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/fieldsch9.html (28 September 2009).

Peter Kropotkin, ‘Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution: Introduction’, 1902, http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidintro.html (28 September 2009).

Kropotkin, Peter, ‘The Conquest of Bread: Chapter III – Anarchist Communism’, 1906, http://libcom.org/library/conquestofbread1906peterkropotkin3 (28 September 2009).

Kropotkin, Peter, Words Of A Rebel (Ottawa: Black Rose Books, 1996), p. 30.

McKay, Iain, An Anarchist FAQ: Volume 1 (Oakland: AK Press, 2009), p. 64.

McKay, Iain, ‘Mutual Aid: An Introduction and Evaluation’, 2008, http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/mutual-aid-an-introduction-and- evaluation (28 September 2009).

Solidarity Issue #5 out now! Free newssheet from AWSM

Download issue in .pdf format (650KB)

The fifth issue of Solidarity, free newssheet of the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement. Download the .pdf above, or click below to read the contents online.

Contents:

• The bad days have begun: Job cuts and a partial wage freeze
• Trade Unionists sentenced to jail in Kanaky
• 100 Waikato dairy workers locked out
• Burgers and Circuses

If you want to make sure you don’t miss an issue of Solidarity, you can subscribe to either the print or electronic version.

To subscribe to the AWSM announcements list, put your email address in the form on the top right of each page on our website, http://www.awsm.org.nz.

Subscribers will be sent .pdf copies of Solidarity each month, along with other publications produced by AWSM and ocasional information – we promise we won’t spam you with a ton of useless stuff though! The electronic copy is identical to the print version.

Or, you can subscribe to the print edition to receive a copy of Solidarity in the post. $8 for 12 issues. Mail a cheque to AWSM, PO Box 6387, Wellington 6141, or contact us to organise an alternative method of payment.

Solidarity Issue #4 out now! Free newssheet from AWSM

Download issue in .pdf format (1.79MB)

The fourth issue of Solidarity, free newssheet of the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement. Download the .pdf above, or click below to read the contents online.

Contents:

• Women workers push for pay equity
• Workers on the flu front line: Fight for respect!
• Meet the greedy: Rob Fyfe, Air NZ CEO
• Super city hikoi in Auckland

If you want to make sure you don’t miss an issue of Solidarity, you can subscribe to either the print or electronic version.

To subscribe to the AWSM announcements list, put your email address in the form on the top right of each page on our website, http://www.awsm.org.nz.

Subscribers will be sent .pdf copies of Solidarity each month, along with other publications produced by AWSM and ocasional information – we promise we won’t spam you with a ton of useless stuff though! The electronic copy is identical to the print version.

Or, you can subscribe to the print edition to receive a copy of Solidarity in the post. $8 for 12 issues. Mail a cheque to AWSM, PO Box 6387, Wellington 6141, or contact us to organise an alternative method of payment.

Māoritanga, souvenirs and New Zealand national identity: colonisation, co-option and commodification

Guess what? It’s another university essay…

Māoritanga, souvenirs and New Zealand national identity: colonisation, co-option and commodification

New Zealanders’ sense of national identity has changed considerably over time. While once it might have been virtually inseparable from British identity, recent decades have seen a shift, with Māoritanga increasingly co-opted into the national whole. To a lesser extent this has occurred for cultural symbols from other parts of the South Pacific. The relatively recent acceptance of Māoritanga is, however, still conditional on it taking place within a Pākehā-created structural framework. This is a process of further encroaching colonisation, with the battleground now moved from land to culture. The resulting commodified Māoritanga is fed into New Zealand’s national identity, and from there is sold to the outside world. This essay will examine how Māoritanga contributes to a Pākehā dominated sense of national identity in New Zealand, through the lens of Pākehā and Māori New Zealanders’ interactions with the rest of the world.

For Pākehā New Zealanders, unique symbols of national identity are few and far between. The pavlova and Phar Lap are claimed by Australia, fish & chips by Britain, and Kiwifruit are originally from China. Despite the non-native origin of much Kiwiana, the contexts of their reproduction still serve to alienate more recent immigrants to New Zealand, those who do not “share a common past” (Bell, 177). Notably absent in most depictions of Kiwiana, however, is any acknowledgement of the one unique part of New Zealand, Māoritanga. Donna Awatere expanded on this, suggesting that “in this country white people have no real identity of their own apart from that which exists in opposition to Māori … the Pākehā has got nothing and has never realised it” (cited in Bell, 177).

Many Pākehā have talked longingly about the cultural richness of Māoritanga, implicitly comparing it to the paucity of uniquely Pākehā culture. In 1954, The Very Rev. J. G. Laughton argued that “part of the action of Māoritanga undoubtedly is the realisation and revaluation of the things that are distinctively Māori, and outstanding in that category is the language” (11). Laughton went on to state that Māori had “lavished art on carved prows and stern posts of the ocean canoe and on the door posts of the tribal houses, and developed the arts of weaving and beautiful reed work“ (Ibid). In a situation where Pākehā identity, and therefore New Zealand’s national identity, was so weak in confidence, it was perhaps inevitable that Pākehā would look to appropriate elements of Māoritanga.

It is when seeking to represent New Zealand to the rest of the world that Pākehā are perhaps most likely to put forward bastardised elements of Māoritanga. Dr. Ani Mikaere notes that “when travelling overseas, Pākehā leap forward to perform bastardised versions of the haka and ‘Pokarekare Ana’, and adorn themselves with Maori pendants in an attempt to identify themselves as New Zealanders” (3). Mikaere contrasts this with the decrying of Māoritanga by those same people when in New Zealand, which she puts down to “cultural insecurity” that “knows no bounds” (Ibid). This policing of the acceptable level and nature of exposure and acknowledgement for Māoritanga, enacted by the Pākehā majority, serves to reassert Pākehā dominance over the indigenous people of this country.

The inclusion of Māoritanga as a part of a New Zealand tourist experience is regarded as essential. Briar O’Connor questions this, noting that while Māori cultural performances (such as haka and poi) are “offered as ‘authentic New Zealand experiences’, these tend to be available on the tourist route only” (161). Certainly, many Pākehā will never see a haka outside of the sports field. Instead, Māoritanga is used as a unique selling point to draw in tourists attracted to the ‘exotic other’. Once brought to New Zealand, tourists will pay money for ‘authentic’ cultural experiences and artefacts (such as tiki), at times in ignorance of cultural offensiveness, such as in the case of plastic tiki salad severs mentioned in O’Connor’s article (168-70).

When a piece of Māoritanga is turned into a commodity, it removes it from common ownership by all Māori, and changes it into something to be bought and sold on the capitalist market, something Pākehā brought with them to this country. Some Māori activists have fought against this, with one, Teanau Tuiono, noting that as some Māori have been assimilated into the capitalist system, it has served to create “capitalism with a smiley (Māori) face. Bullshit. Watching our rangatiratanga go up and down on the stock exchange is not a good thing” (6-7)

Māoritanga plays an increasing role in New Zealand’s national identity, including Pākehā identity. This role, however, remains strictly policed, and is only acceptable two circumstances: insofar as it accepts a capitalist framework and plays a part in New Zealand’s tourism industry, and when it allows Pākehā to foster a unique sense of national identity when interacting with the rest of the world. Pākehā have moved from attempting to destroy Māoritanga, as was done in earlier days of colonisation, into attempting to take it for themselves and use it as they see fit.

List of cited works

Bell, Claudia. “Kiwiana Revisited.” Cultural Studies in Aotearoa New Zealand: Identity, Space and Place, Claudia Bell & Steve Matthewman, eds., Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2004. 177. Print.

Laughton, The Very Rev. J. G. “Maoritanga.” Te Ao Hou, Erik Schwimmer, ed., Wellington: Maori Affairs Department, 1954. 11. Print.

Mikaere, Dr. Ani. “Are we all New Zealanders now?” A Maori response to the Pakeha quest for indigeneity. 2004. 3. Print.

O’Connor, Briar. “The Dilemma of Souvenirs.” Cultural Studies in Aotearoa New Zealand: Identity, Space and Place, Claudia Bell & Steve Matthewman, eds., Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2004. 161, 168-70. Print.

Tuiono, Teanau. “Tino Rangatiratanga and Capitalism.” Thrall Spring 2002. Christchurch: Thrall, 2002. 7. Print.

Patriarchy and punk: Fighting hegemonic masculinity in a supposedly equalitarian subculture

Yet another university essay:

Patriarchy and punk: Fighting hegemonic masculinity in a supposedly equalitarian subculture

Punk sees itself as an oppositional subculture, one which fights against many of the dominant norms of society it considers to be oppressive. Within punk, however, there has long been a battle for equality between men and women. Many female punks are forced not only to battle sexism in wider society, but also in their chosen subculture. The resistance to the sexism inherent in today’s hegemonic masculinity has taken, and continues to take, many forms. This essay will examine some of the ways in which hegemonic masculinity, and more specifically sexism, exists, and is resisted, within the youth subculture of punk.

The roles played by female punks within the punk subculture are diverse and wide-ranging. In some instances, female punks are able to claim a position of influence, as shown by Griffiths, who states that “female anarcho-punks – un-marginalised –  have played a central role in organising gigs or music shows in New Zealand’s major cities” (239). This is not always the case however, with McRobbie noting that women are in fact often marginalised and defined as “the people who were dancing over in the corner by the speakers” (cited in Born, 306). These contradictory positions show that while female punks may have social power in some situations, this does not mean they are participating in punk on a truly equal level with male punks. Even in the example given by Griffiths, female punks are playing what can be considered to be a traditional female role, that of sorting out logistical issues, even if the setting – a punk music venue – is slightly different from that which most people may encounter.

Rape and other forms of intimate violence are prevalent throughout society, so it is therefore no surprise that it occurs within the punk subculture. Through these forms of violence, men display power over women. However, this blatant form of misogyny is not the only way that this power is displayed. In a subculture such as punk, where anti-sexist beliefs are often seen as a requirement, and the police are regarded with mistrust, some men have taken it upon themselves to deal out what they see as justice to abusive men. In many ways, this form of community justice serves to reinforce hegemonic male gender roles, and to further marginalise the status of women within the community. Female punk Lauraine Leblanc relates a story in which her male punk friends attempt to stand up for her by assaulting a man who had insulted her, despite the matter already being resolved to Leblanc’s satisfaction. “Having been inducted into the local punks’ ‘tribe’, it seemed that I was theirs – the guys’ – to ‘protect,’ regardless of whether or not I wanted or needed such protection … I was angry that these boys, most of whom were a decade younger than I, assumed I was in need of their protection … Punk lives, and I guess chivalry’s not dead either” (104). This example shows that, even when attempting to escape hegemonic masculinity, men can act in ways which serve to reinforce it.

The riot grrrl movement, a subset of punk, was created in the early 1990s to explicitly oppose the sexism that it’s members found in the punk subculture (McKee). One of the major aspects of riot grrrl was the creation of ‘zines, which provide “an opportunity for women to voice their experiences, opinions, stories, and criticisms of culture in a photocopied ’safe space’” (Holtzman, Hughes & Van Meter, 7). In creating women only spaces, the riot grrrl movement attempted to avoid the most harmful effects of hegemonic masculinity. Some women, however, felt that even in these spaces, they were still not able to escape sexist behaviour. “What is disturbing is that women are not being called on the shit we do to hold ourselves back, in part, because there is an attitude that women have nothing to do with continuing sexism, because we’re victims. Ultimately, I don’t see equality in sight until we confront ourselves” (Bartchy, cited in O’Hara, 109). O’Hara notes that the power of our societal conditioning makes it harder to escape hegemonic masculinity (Ibid), in a further example of hegemony’s ability to shape human behaviour, even when that behaviour is an attempt at resistance to hegemony.

As an oppositional, confrontational subculture, punk’s examples of hegemonic masculinity and how that hegemony is able to shape resistance is especially relevant to those interested in how structures of power operate. While, as noted by Osgerby, riot grrrl “confront[ed] subjects such as misogyny and physical abuse” (122), it was by no means a complete solution to the problems of hegemonic masculinity’s expression within punk. This is in part because, as a (partially) separatist movement, it did not attempt to change male behaviour, but also because the social conditioning of the women within it meant that their behaviour reflected some of the problematic parts of the hegemonic masculinity. The ongoing processes of negotiation and accommodation through which the prevailing hegemony is reproduced are not done from an equal standpoint, but rather one in which the hegemonic position itself is able to define the boundaries of that negotiation.

List of cited works

Born, Georgina. “Modern music culture: on shock, pop and synthesis.” Popular Music: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. Volume 4: Music and Identity, Simon Frith, ed., London: Routledge, 2004. 306. Print.

Griffiths, Richard. “Wicked Wardrobes: Youth and Fashion in Aotearoa New Zealand.” Cultural Studies in Aotearoa New Zealand: Identity, Space and Place, Claudia Bell & Steve Matthewman, eds., Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2004. 239. Print.

Holtzman, Ben, Craig Hughes & Kevin Van Meter. “Do It Yourself …and the movement beyond capitalism.” Radical Society: A Review of Culture and Politics, Timothy Don, ed., New York: Radical Society, Ltd, 2005. 7-15. Print.

Leblanc, Lauraine. Pretty In Punk: Girls’ Gender Resistance in a Boys’ Subculture. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1999. 104. Print.

McKee, Michael. “ Riot Grrl”. The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. 2009. Web. 7 June 2009.

O’Hara, Craig. The philosophy of punk: more than noise. Oakland: AK Press, 2001. 109. Print.

Osgerby, Bill. Youth Media. London: Routledge, 2004. 122. Print.

Solidarity Issue #3 out now! Free newssheet by AWSM

Download issue in .pdf format (1.23MB)

The third issue of Solidarity, free monthly newssheet of the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement. Download the .pdf above, or click below to read the contents online. This issue has a special feature on May Day, international workers day.

Contents:

• Locked out Zeal workers stand strong!
• Zeal 320 Interview
• What is May Day?
• May Day 2009 Report: Auckland
• May Day 2009 Report: Wellington
• May Day 2009 Report: Blackball
• The curator of Baghdad: a story from Guantanamo

If you want to make sure you don’t miss an issue of Solidarity, you can subscribe to either the print or electronic version.

To subscribe to the AWSM announcements list, put your email address in the form on the top right of each page on our website, http://www.awsm.org.nz.

Subscribers will be sent .pdf copies of Solidarity each month, along with other publications produced by AWSM and ocasional information – we promise we won’t spam you with a ton of useless stuff though! The electronic copy is identical to the print version.

Or, you can subscribe to the print edition to receive a copy of Solidarity in the post. $8 for 12 issues. Mail a cheque to AWSM, PO Box 6387, Wellington 6141, or contact us to organise an alternative method of payment.

Interview with 2 Zeal 320 workers

The first of two videos from the last 4 days of industrial action by Zeal 320 workers. The workers, flight attendants on trans-Tasman and Pacific routes for Air New Zealand, were locked out from Thursday – Sunday. Pickets were held in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

For more information about the Zeal workers fight for better wages and conditions, see the EPMU website.

Also worth checking out is the Facebook supporters group (with close to 1000 members), and Zealgirl’s Blog, written by one of the locked out workers, which gives a personalised perspective on their struggle.

If you can’t see the embedded video below, check it out on YouTube.

Rugby union and destructive masculinity in New Zealand

Another university essay, this one for my Media Studies class.

Rugby union and destructive masculinity in New Zealand

The sport of rugby union has long been a cornerstone of masculinity in New Zealand, in both the creation and the enforcement of what it means to be a man in this country. Rugby’s position as “more than just a game to the New Zealander … something of the status of a national cult” (Ausubel, cited in Thomson and Sim, 119) has meant that those values associated with the sport have been allowed to permeate throughout New Zealand society. Values associated with rugby, and therefore masculinity, such as hardness, aggression and detachment from emotion (Jackson and McKenzie, cited in Thomson and Sim, 117), are often damaging. This damage is experienced in different ways by women, by men who lie outside the dominant masculine framework and even by men who buy into that framework.

Thomson and Sim point out that acceptance of the dominant form of masculinity in New Zealand is a requirement for a man “to gain respect and acceptance from other males” (118), and many women. Those men who choose to, or can only, remain outside of this form of masculinity are thus excluded from taking a full part in what has been defined as New Zealand male culture. The place of nerds, queers and others in the micro society of a high school as compared to the rugby jocks is an example of this – those who do not accept the dominant form of masculinity are generally doomed to verbal and physical bullying.

The aggression rugby players show on the field can encourage aggression off of it by spectators. Anecdotal evidence exists that instances of domestic violence increase nationally after an All Blacks loss, with some Child, Youth and Family social workers and the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges reporting an increase in demand for their services (Rodney Times, The New Zealand Herald). A general disrespect for women is also noted by Jackson and McKenzie in the atmosphere of the rugby club, notably through the medium of song (cited in Thomson and Sim, 118).

A disengagement from emotion is another characteristic of the stereotypical ‘kiwi bloke’. This disengagement can lead to serious consequences, including an unwillingness to seek help when confronted by mental illness and potentially worsening the chances of an attempt at suicide in serious cases. This disengagement and the links between the masculinity that encourages it and rugby have been recognised, and efforts to counter this have been prominent in popular media. Most notable amongst these efforts is the Government funded depression awareness campaign fronted by John Kirwan, a highly regarded former All Black (McKenzie-Minifie).

In rugby culture, the ‘hard man’ is valued. The respect given to players such as Wayne ‘Buck’ Shelford, who continued playing for the All Blacks against France in 1986 after having his scrotum ripped (BBC Sport Online), and Norm Hewitt, who played with a broken arm for Wellington against Canterbury in 2000 (AllBlacks.com), shows the encouragement of an attitude which ignores pain, even when ignoring that pain could be detrimental to a player’s long-term health.

The conflict between the misogynist rugby culture and women and anti-sexist men perhaps reached a peak during the protests against the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand. Nauright and Black argue that during the tour “the old masculine hegemony promoted through the rugby culture, was threatened not only by international politics, but by internal gender and race struggles” (cited in Thomson and Sim, 120). This resistance challenged the place of rugby and rugby culture in New Zealand (Fougere, cited in Thomson and Sim, 120), and while rugby may have recovered some ground, it certainly no longer dominates New Zealand culture in the way it once did. The rise in popularity of soccer, which is now the most played sport at high school level (SPARC – ihi Aotearoa), is another signifier of the lessening role rugby plays in New Zealand society.

While challenges to the dominant form of masculinity and to rugby’s role in New Zealand society exist, rugby culture is undoubtedly still a strong force in this country. The values promoted by New Zealand masculinity, heavily influenced by rugby culture, are damaging to people all across the country. They hurt people physically and mentally, both directly, such as in the form of domestic violence, or indirectly, such as when a suicidal person is afraid to appear weak and therefore does not seek help.

List of cited works

Knight, Lindsay. “Norm Hewitt.” AllBlacks.com. Web. 3 May 2009.

McKenzie-Minifie, Martha. “John Kirwan inspires men to reach out for help.” NZHerald.co.nz. 28 Nov. 2006. Web. 3 May 2009.

The New Zealand Herald. “Women suffer rugby backlash.” NZHerald.co.nz. 9 Oct. 2007. Web. 3 May 2009.

Rodney Times. “All Black losses pose family risk.” Rodney Times. 25 Sept. 2007. Web. 3 May 2009.

Soneji, Pranav. “Buck’s All Blacks fizz.” BBC Sport Online. 24 Oct. 2002. Web. 3 May 2009.

SPARC – ihi Aotearoa. “Participation in sport and active leisure by NZ young people.” SPARC – ihi Aotearoa. 30 Mar. 2006. Web. 3 May 2009.

Thomson, Rex & Justin Sim. “Sport and Culture: Passion and Paradox.” Sport in Aotearoa/New Zealand Society. Second Edition, Chris Collins & Steve Jackson, eds., Melbourne: Thomson, 2007. 113-129. Print.

Solidarity Issue #2 out now! Free newssheet by AWSM

Download issue in .pdf format (2.87MB)

The second issue of Solidarity, free monthly newssheet of the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement. Download the .pdf above, or click below to read the contents online.

Contents:

• In the sky and on the phones – workers stand strong and fight back!
• On the privatisation of prisons
• Shark alert in the Hutt Valley
• Solidarity with migrant workers
• What is anarchist-communism? Part 1
• Water meters too scary for Mayor Kerry

If you want to make sure you don’t miss an issue of Solidarity, you can subscribe to either the print or electronic version.

To subscribe to the AWSM announcements list, email info [at] awsm.org.nz. Subscribers will be sent .pdf copies of Solidarity each month, along with other publications produced by AWSM and occasional information – we promise we won’t spam you with a ton of useless stuff though! The electronic copy is identical to the print version. And, of course, it’s free!

Or, you can subscribe to the print edition to receive a copy of Solidarity in the post. $8 for 12 issues. Mail a cheque to AWSM, PO Box 6387, Wellington 6141, or contact us to organise an alternative method of payment.

An equal society? Race and class divisions in modern New Zealand society

Another day, another university essay…

This one was in response to the following essay question:

Leslie Lipson wrote in 1948 that “if any sculptured allegory was to be placed at the approaches of Auckland or Wellington harbour, it would assuredly be a statute of Equality.” Do you think this remains the case in 2009? Discuss.

My original plan had been to also include immigration related things in the Race section, and to have a 3rd Partiarchy section, but unfortunately I ran out of both time and space to do them.

An equal society? Race and class divisions in modern New Zealand society

If we visualise Wellington harbour, the sea glistening on a beautiful summer’s day. A great sculpture, standing at its entrance, proclaiming to all a particular value, feature or characteristic that holds true across New Zealand society, what would that sculpture be? At least two possibilities hold true: a rifle wielding colonist, poised to steal land from a Maori community or perhaps a boss hoarding profit while using a mound of workers as a footstool. These social divisions of race and class , seen time and time again across New Zealand history, present the true face of New Zealand as a modern, capitalist, representative democracy.

Race – colonisation and resistance

Since the beginning of European colonisation of New Zealand, Maori have struggled to maintain their land and culture. Sometimes this took the form of open warfare, for example resistance led by Te Kooti in and around the Waikato.1 In other parts of the country self-imposed isolation was attempted, such as in Tuhoe, especially during the time of Rua Kenana and his settlement Hiruharama Hou, or New Jerusalem.2 Yet other Maori chose non-violent resistance to maintain their mana, as occurred in Parihaka under Te Whiti-o-Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi.3 Regardless of the methods chosen, resistance was the general theme amongst Maori as British colonisers began to exert their power and control over these islands.

Today, we still see resistance from Maori, both to continuing colonisation and to the efforts at redress of historical grievances made by the New Zealand Government, primarily through the Waitangi Tribunal. For some Maori activists for tino rangatiratanga, colonisation ‘can be seen as a part of the global process of capitalist expansionism based on the destruction of the territorial and cultural integrity of the indigenous populations by the expropriation and commodification of their lands and human resources’.4 Likewise, the group Aotearoa Educators sees international capitalist institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank as representing a further wave of colonisation.5

Just as resistance took on a multiplicity of forms in the past, so too does Maori resistance to ongoing colonisation in 2009. Cultural resistance, in the form of the revitalisation of te reo Maori and tikanga Maori, begun in the 1970s, continues today. Symbolic resistance, in the form of protests, takes place around a variety of issues, most prominently in recent years the hikoi against the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004, which saw tens of thousands of Maori converge on parliament, many having marched the length of the North Island.6 Direct action to reclaim land also occurs with some regularity, with land occupations the most common form. In recent years, the 1995 occupation of Pakaitore in Wanganui, which lasted for 79 days, is perhaps the most prominent example, but smaller scale and less well known land occupations have occurred. April 2009 has seen an occupation in Taranaki in opposition to drilling by Greymouth Petroleum under land which includes urupa (burial grounds) and spring water still used today.7

The ongoing process of colonisation and resistance to it present a clear divide between Maori and Pakeha, a defining feature in modern New Zealand society.

Capitalism and class struggle

For many, the myth of New Zealand as a classless society held true up until the reforms of the fourth Labour government. Historian James Belich explained some of the reasoning behind this myth by noting that the living standards of working class New Zealanders were generally higher than those of working class British people in the late 19th and early 20th century. Despite this, there was little movement between the working and ruling classes in New Zealand at the time.8

In the mid 1970s and 80s, class struggle in New Zealand reached a peak not seen since the 1951 waterfront lockout. In 1977, over 200,000 workers went out on strike at some point during the year, while in 1985 over 1.2 million working days were reclaimed by striking workers.9 While the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991, legislation that severely restricted worker’s ability to strike legally, saw a significant reduction in strikes, class struggle continued in other forms.

Marx and Engels argued that the one constant throughout all societies in history was class struggle, which shaped those societies.10 For New Zealand in 2009, this still holds true. New Zealand ranks in the bottom half of OECD countries for income disparity, a worse rating than Sweden, Australia, Canada and Ireland amongst others.11 In the midst of a recession, workers are being expected to take further financial strains, both in the form of Government endorsed 9 day working fortnights (with almost a full day’s cut in pay) and in reductions in wages and conditions, simply to ensure that profit stays at a level able to keep the ruling class in the lifestyle it is accustomed to.

The 90 Day Act, which allows owners of businesses employing under 20 workers (which amounts to over 90% of work sites) to fire any worker without reason in the first 90 days of employment, is another recent example of an attack on workers rights.12 These state and corporate responses to the recession show the global resonance of predictions made by British writer Joseph Kay, who discussed a range of inevitable attacks on the working class due to the recession, both at work (in the forms of redundancies and cuts in wages and conditions) and in the community (such as evictions, foreclosures and public service cuts).13

All of the above add to pervasive class divisions in New Zealand society – divisions which are inevitable under capitalism. Constant throughout New Zealand’s history and still present in 2009, class divisions are clearly a defining characteristic in New Zealand society.

Conclusion – New Zealand, unequal and divided

As a capitalist society, based upon the colonisation of an indigenous people and the land they lived upon, New Zealand cannot be classed as anything but an unequal society. The myths of New Zealand society as a classless society with good race relations have been repeatedly proved untrue throughout history, and present day political and economic struggles against the dominant class continue this process of exploitation and resistance.

Footnotes

1: Judith Binney, ‘Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki   ? – 1893′, 2007, http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/dnzb/default.asp?Find_Quick.asp?PersonEssay=1T45 (accessed 3 April 2009).

2: Rangi McGarvey, ‘Ngai Tuhoe – Self-imposed isolation – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand’, 2008, http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/MaoriNewZealanders/NgaiTuhoe/6/en (accessed 3 April 2009).

3: Te Miringa Hohaia, ‘Taranaki – Resistance – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand’, 2008, http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/MaoriNewZealanders/Taranaki/4/en (accessed 3 April 2009)

4: Teanau Tuiono, ‘Tino Rangatiratanga and capitalism’, Thrall, Issue 24, p. 3.

5: Aotearoa Educators, ‘neo-liberal globalisation and the tino rangatiratanga movement’, Thrall, Issue 18, p.3.

6: Alastair Thompson, ‘Scoop: Seabed Hikoi Reaches Parliament’, 2004, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0405/S00046.htm (accessed 3 April 2009).

7: Tuhi-Ao, ‘Otaraua Hapu occupation of mine reaches 17 days’, 2009, http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/77066/index.php, (accessed 7 April 2009).

8: James Belich, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders from Polynesian Settlement until the End of the Nineteenth Century (Honolulu : University of Hawai’i Press, 2001), p. 328-32.

9: Toby Boraman, The myth of passivity: class struggles against neoliberalism in Aotearoa in the 1990s (Dunedin: Irrecuperable Distribution, 2004), pp. 16-17.

10: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist manifesto (New York: Signic Classic, 1998), p 1.

11: Ministry of Social Development, ‘Income inequality – Social report 2008′, 2008, http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/economic-standard-living/income-inequality.html (accessed 3 April 2009).

12: Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement, ‘Say NO to the 90 Day Hire & Fire Act!’, Solidarity, Issue 1, February 2009, p. 3.

13: Joseph Kay, ‘What recession means for us’, 2008, http://libcom.org/library/what-recession-means-us (accessed 3 April 2009).

Bibliography

Aotearoa Educators, ‘neo-liberal globalisation and the tino rangatiratanga movement’, Thrall, Issue 18, p.3.

Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement, ‘Say NO to the 90 Day Hire & Fire Act!’, Solidarity, Issue 1, February 2009, p. 3.

Belich, James, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders from Polynesian Settlement until the End of the Nineteenth Century (Honolulu : University of Hawai’i Press, 2001), p. 328-32.

Binney, Judith, ‘Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki   ? – 1893′, 2007, http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/dnzb/default.asp?Find_Quick.asp?PersonEssay=1T45 (3 April 2009).

Boraman. Toby, The myth of passivity: class struggles against neoliberalism in Aotearoa in the 1990s (Dunedin: Irrecuperable Distribution, 2004), pp. 16-17.

Heywood, Andrew, Politics, 2nd edition (Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002).

Heywood, Andrew, Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 3rd edition (Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005).

Hohaia, Te Miringa, ‘Taranaki – Resistance – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand’, 2008, http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/MaoriNewZealanders/Taranaki/4/en (3 April 2009)

Kay, Joseph, ‘What recession means for us’, 2008, http://libcom.org/library/what-recession-means-us (3 April 2009).

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, The Communist manifesto (New York: Signic Classic, 1998), p 1.

McGarvey, Rangi, ‘Ngai Tuhoe – Self-imposed isolation – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand’, 2008, http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/MaoriNewZealanders/NgaiTuhoe/6/en (3 April 2009).

Ministry of Social Development, ‘Income inequality – Social report 2008′, 2008, http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/economic-standard-living/income-inequality.html (3 April 2009).

Morse, Valerie, Against Freedom: The war on terrorism in everyday New Zealand life (Wellington: Rebel Press, 2007).

Mulgan, Richard, Politics In New Zealand, 3rd Edition (Auckland: Auckland University Press, 2004)

Thompson, Alastair, ‘Scoop: Seabed Hikoi Reaches Parliament’, 2004, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0405/S00046.htm (3 April 2009).

Tuhi-Ao, ‘Otaraua Hapu occupation of mine reaches 17 days’, 2009, http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/77066/index.php, (7 April 2009).

Tuiono, Teanau, ‘Tino Rangatiratanga and capitalism’, Thrall, Issue 24, p. 3.