MAORI SOCIAL STRUCTURE

The social structure of the Maori is closely related to their demographic position, their economic status, and their political relations in the New Zealand community. A minority group within the general population, showing differences of cultural interest from other New Zealanders and suffering at times from mild discrimination, the Maori people demonstrate considerable unity. Yet some differences in their structure occur according to whether they are in urban or rural situations, and tend to be related also to their educational level. Moreover, in major respects the modern Maori are increasingly regarded by themselves and by their fellow citizens as New Zealanders who, descended from early inhabitants, participate in and contribute effectively to the community life of the country.

TRADITIONAL SOCIAL STRUCTURE

An understanding of modern Maori social structure requires some knowledge of Maori traditional society. Not only have many of the traditional forms been directly responsible for the manner in which the modern Maori have developed, but also they have served as a conceptual image, providing an ideal frame within which Maori action is thought to take place most appropriately.

Traditional Maori social structure may be described most simply as a tribal one. The Maori tribe (iwi) was essentially a large territorially-based social unit, the members of which claimed descent from at least one common ancestor many generations ago. In some cases the tribe was named from such an ancestor; e.g., Ngati Tuwharetoa of the Taupo region claimed descent from Tuwharetoa; and Ngati Maniapoto of Waikato from Maniapoto, each about 15 generations from the present day. At the time that Europeans first began to visit New Zealand, each tribe probably comprised on the average a population of at least several thousands.

The Tribe

The tribe was the largest political unit of which the members regarded themselves as sharing common descent. An image of a wider political unity, however, was provided by the concept of the traditional canoe (waka) in which the major ancestors of a set of Maori tribes are believed to have come to New Zealand. (The country was inhabited by earlier peoples, also apparently of similar type, with whom the later immigrants intermarried and fought, but relatively little traditional data have been preserved about them.) According to tradition, some of these canoes came at various times, but a major contribution to the settlement of the country was made by the arrival of the “great fleet”, estimated on genealogical grounds to have come about 600 years ago. The vessels generally associated with this tradition were: Te Arawa, Takitimu, Tainui, Aotea, Mataatua, Toko-maru, Horouta, Kurahaupo, Nga Tokimatawhaorua. Tribes whose major ancestors were captains or crew of the same canoe regarded themselves as being in a general sense linked by this common origin. Such linkage did not constitute a federation for any regular specific political ends. It was rather a symbolic unity which sometimes became manifest in military alliances, but more often was called upon on social occasions to indicate ties between people of rank. But though the symbolic unity might not often be politically effective, it was cherished, and in some cases symbols of the original canoe, such as an anchor stone – miraculously preserved – were regarded with great respect.

The Sub-tribe

For most political purposes in traditional Maori society, the effective unit was what has commonly been termed the sub-tribe (hapu). This was a unit with strong local ties and very definite territorial boundaries and membership was demarcated by a combination of descent and residence. More precisely, the hapu may be described as a localised descent group. A person, in theory at least, could trace membership through either father or mother. When these belonged to separate hapu, he might claim to be a member of both and exercise rights, including land rights, in each. But the implementation of such claims was determined primarily by residence. The child of a non-resident member of a hapu effectively ceased to be able to exercise any claim therein. In anthropological terms a hapu was a non-unilineal descent group of ambilateral constitution, and such a group has sometimes been called a ramage. Hapu were formed by segmentary process. The descendants of, say, a younger son, after several generations, might separate off from the descendants of an older son, take a separate name and regard themselves for ordinary social and political purposes as a separate unit. The functions of the hapu were the control of a specific territory and defence of that territory, if necessary by war, against any other group. Feuding not infrequently occurred between hapu, even of the same tribe. Since the hapu was not necessarily an exogamous unit, i.e., a man could marry a woman either from his own or from another group, there was a tendency for the hapu to be fairly inbred and self-sufficient or to maintain an especially close relationship with another hapu territorially adjacent.

The lands of the hapu were divided up into sections, each administered by smaller social units (whanau) which may be termed extended family units. Each of these would probably comprise a grandfather, his wife, his unmarried offspring, his married sons and their wives and children; or a group of brothers with their wives, sons, sons' wives and offspring. To such a group a married daughter, her husband and children might also belong. Such a unit operated as a day-to-day economic group, cultivating its own land, fowling, fishing, and collecting raw material from within its own borders. It might also serve as the normal consumption unit, having one or more common ovens for the preparation of food. In marriage and at funerals, the whanau also operated as a primary unit.

The Family

Within the whanau the elementary family of parents and children was not very clearly defined as a structural unit. But there is good evidence that for many social purposes in everyday life, including much of the care of children, the elementary family was an operational group. Moreover, the fact that a person could inherit land rights from his mother as well as from his father meant a specification of ties in individual family terms and not a merging of them indiscriminately in the extended family. However, in residence, land rights, exchange of goods, and many other social and economic actions, the elementary family of parents and children did not stand out as a separate entity in the way characteristic of European family life. Traditional Maori society emphasised the rights and obligations of persons as members of village, whanau and hapu rather than as discrete individuals. Moreover, individuals were used at times in order to further group interests. Marriages were sometimes contracted on behalf of young people by their elders for political reasons. Again, adoption, a fairly common custom in traditional Maori society, often took place in order to revive or bind more closely kin ties among people who lived at a distance, sometimes with the object of renewing rights to land or maintaining connections for aid in war.

Settlements and Society

Residentially, the Maori people in former times lived in nucleated settlements varying in size from a hamlet of a few households in a remote and rugged mountain area to a village in a fertile plain of several hundred dwellings and a population of a thousand people or more. Apart from ordinary dwellings, which usually accommodated households larger than an elementary family, each settlement of any size had one or more buildings of superior style, large (perhaps 50 ft or more in length) and with carved bargeboards, lintels, and interior slabs. Such a large building was the public meeting house or hall of assembly of the village people. The carved timbers might serve to commemorate well-known ancestors and be named after them as memorial slabs. Standing at one side of the village central square (marae), the meeting house, like the square itself, served as the focus of community life, the place of reception for distinguished visitors and the scene of the most significant community ceremonies, including funerals.

Traditional Maori society was not highly stratified. Theoretically there were three social strata, gentry (rangatira), commoners (tauwareware), and slaves (taurekareka). But the segmentary structure of Maori descent groups meant that in general those persons who could be described as commoners in most social contexts were in fact the junior kin of those described as gentry. On the other hand, from the general body of gentry could be distinguished the leading chiefs (ariki), senior by descent from the original ancestors of the tribe. Slaves, commonly captives taken in war or their immediate descendants, had no personal rights, though in practice they appear to have been treated reasonably well, and intermarriage between them and free people of low rank was quite common, the resulting offspring being free. Among the free members of a community social relations were without very much formality. Those of lower rank, for example, addressed those of higher rank by their personal names, and only in the case of ariki was there a marked differentiation observed. At the same time, the rules of personal taboo applying to people of high rank tended to inhibit their complete freedom of behaviour.

Leadership in traditional Maori society rested largely upon age and seniority. Elders (kaumatua) were respected and their advice commonly heeded. But more specific leadership was provided by people of senior descent from the primary ancestors. At the apex of the pyramid of leadership in a tribe was the ariki, ideally the first-born descendant of a line of first-born sons, and in practice the man of senior descent, normally in the male line. Since the Maori system of descent and succession was not formally unilineal, a person of high rank could trace his title through females as well as males. But an unbroken descent in the male line was preferred, if possible; and this was termed the aho ariki (chiefly cord) or tahuhu (ridge pole). The senior man by descent in a tribe always retained his mana ariki, his prestige as a lineal chief, and certain associated powers, including some of a ritual nature. In practice, however, not all ariki were of high competence, and ability and force of character could give other men an achieved status, especially in war, which was frequent. But while such men might have great mana, the authority and power deriving from success in practical affairs, they never could be ariki, or have ritual status. A term for a leader of low birth; whose status was derived from his personal qualities, was rangatira paraparau, meaning fairly literally a “pseudo-aristocrat”. Women who had senior positions by descent held high status, and some of forceful character exercised authority parallel to that of men. But the system was unequal in that by convention in most tribes a woman could not stand up and address a gathering publicly at a village marae, as her brother or her husband could.

This sketch of traditional Maori society shows part of the background against which modern Maori society operates. The structure of this modern society is more complex and less clearly marked.

MODERN SOCIETY

Political and Cultural Relations

A most significant factor is the changed demographic position of the Maori. Traditionally spread over most of New Zealand (their numbers not closely known, but perhaps around 200,000), their economic and political relations of cooperation and competition were with one another. Nowadays they are a minority – but despite their rapid growth they still comprise only about 7 per cent of the New Zealand population – and they live in discontinuous areas. Economically their basis of life has radically changed from a simple subsistence type of agriculture, with fishing and collecting as subsidiary employments, to modern farming and industrial and urban employment.

Political Unity

How far then do the modern Maoris constitute a community? Politically they do so only at the level of parliamentary government, the four Maori electorates allocated on a geographical basis providing representatives of the people who, together with other New Zealand representatives, constitute the democratic government of the country. Among themselves the Maori people do not constitute a single political unit. The Maori “King”, sometimes thought by people elsewhere to be the political leader of all the Maori society, does in fact – though his prestige is great throughout the entire country – exercise direct influence or authority only over one major sector of the Maori people. Today King Koroki, fifth bearer of the title, is the head of the group of Waikato and allied tribes, including Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Haua, Ngati Paoa, Ngati Maru, and Ngai-te-Rangi, broadly grouped as the descendants of the Tainui canoe. Historically the reasons for this are well known.

The strength of regional ties for the Maori and the values attached to them are illustrated by cases of cooperative action. In the early years of the present century Hone Heke , M.P., a noted chief and statesmanlike leader, who had represented the Maori people of the north in Parliament, died in the south of the country. The southern Maori leaders, as was appropriate, brought his body back to his home for burial, a gesture very much appreciated by the northern people. Led by the mother of Hone Heke, the northern people described his seat in Parliament, in graphic Maori language, as his “widow”, and decided to reciprocate the southern gesture by asking for a southern nominee to fill the seat. Dr Peter H. Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), afterwards a noted anthropologist, was thus put forward as a candidate for Parliament and won his election uncontested and without making a single speech; he had “married” the northern Maori “widow”, and automatically was given all the votes. Different regional units also combined in a gesture of Maori solidarity at the funeral of “Princess” Te Puea Herangi, a close kinswoman of the Maori King and the most prominent Maori woman leader in New Zealand. Her pall-bearers were men each representing a different ancestral canoe, and this ceremonial funeral service was thus shared by Maoris from all over the country, not as individuals but as delegates from major political divisions of the Maori people. So the traditional symbolic divisions into “canoes”, though of significance only in Maori society, and of no official relevance in the overall New Zealand political system, still constitute modern allegiances which may be quite significant in action.

Cultural Unity

But if the Maori people have not political unity, they do have much cultural unity. It is true that a very few people who are entitled to call themselves Maori by descent may have cut themselves off completely from the main body and become completely merged with other New Zealanders. It is true also that many Maoris, especially young people, know little of their own vernacular language. But for the great majority Maoritanga – the Maori way of doing things – is still highly significant in social and especially ceremonial affairs. If a distinguished guest is welcomed at a public meeting of general importance, his arrival is quite likely to be challenged in conventional Maori style with a defiant speech and a thrown stick. It is for the guest formally to indicate his peaceful intentions by picking up the stick and declaring his mission. A death is marked by the elaborate ceremonies of the tangi, in which formal wailing, speeches of farewell in the vernacular, and the watch over the dead are accompanied by funeral feasts of large proportion. The feast (hui) marks many events of public significance in a Maori community, including the opening of a new church or meeting house. Special types of food, cooked in the Polynesian type of covered earth oven heated by stones, are often then characteristic. The ceremonial sharing in the consumption of food helps to ratify socially important undertakings and relationships. A particular Maori gesture of friendliness (common also to other Polynesian peoples) is the hongi, the ceremonial pressing of noses, by which people of either sex or any age greet one another, in private or in public. Public expressions of aroha (sympathy) give a special quality to many relationships between Maori people, especially relations between kin. It is this conception which, perhaps as much as any other, is responsible for the adherence of young people to Maori community life. They believe that in many respects they have in their Maori relationships a warmth, a generosity, and a tolerance which they feel is sometimes apt to be lacking in the world outside. Structurally such concepts and relations are of great significance, especially in the relatively dispersed conditions of modern Maori living.

Modern Group Structure

Some modern Maori people dwell in nucleated settlements; but many live on individual farms, often interspersed among those of other New Zealanders, and many others, engaged in industrial employment, live in or near towns, sometimes with no marked local concentration. For a great number of those who live scattered in rural areas or in or near urban centres the marae of the home locality is still a powerful social magnet. Tribal names and tribal affiliations are still very important. The canoe link still has significance as a symbolic force of unity. The canoe name is cited to show relationship between people, or a model of the canoe, built in accord with traditional description, is prepared for presentation on a public occasion.

Importance of the Marae

One of the most striking features in modern Maori society is the importance attached to the marae and its meeting house as places of assembly and symbols of local unity and pride. It is thought by Maori leaders that every Maori community should have its marae or some form of “civic centre”. So even when, as has happened in some cases, Maori people have practically severed their ties with their tribal home, they have tended to recreate a community structure in their new home, using either a marae or hall of assembly, or both, as their focus. Members of several tribes may combine in modern conditions to institute such facilities. As far back as 1929 a group of Maori people in Wellington formed an organisation for welfare and relief work, contributing money and services each week to be used to assist other Maori people who were suffering from the economic depression. These people, of diverse tribal origins, called themselves the Ngati Poneke Club, thus setting up a new group name on the model of the old collective tribal name. (Poneke was the early Maori pronunciation of Port Nicholson, the name for Wellington Harbour.) It seemed to the Maori appropriate that a term equivalent to “the children of Port Nicholson” should designate their unity in a manner parallel to the designation of traditional Maori tribal units. Later developments along similar lines have led to the formation of the Ngati Poneke Young Maori Club which, by dances, concert parties, and the teaching of action songs, has done much to develop knowledge of Maori culture locally among the young people. Again, far to the south in the town of Bluff, also in difficult circumstances, a small Maori community descended from Ngai Tahu, Ngati Mamoe, and Waitaha tribes, combined to institute an assembly hall with a courtyard to serve as a centre for the practice of Maori songs and the entertainment of visitors.

In the modern Maori scene the traditional principles of group structure have been considerably modified, and new forms of grouping have come into social prominence. The individual or elementary family has gained in significance against the extended family or the hapu. For the most part now Maori families live in separate dwellings, each housing a married pair with their children and perhaps some attached kin. This group may function as a single consumption unit, but in most economic contexts it is the elementary family with the husband and father as wage earner which is most significant.

At the wider social level a kin group which is not precisely the extended family of traditional Maori society, but a group of composite kin character, with a marked absence of unilineality, is often the operative unit. Overall, hapu structure in general is still preserved, though some young people nowadays are even uncertain of the name of the hapu to which they belong. (Nearly all Maoris, however, are clear about their major tribal affiliation.) In the major urban areas alignment by hapu is almost if not completely absent, though many ties may still be kept up with kin living in a rural area, where the traditional principles are more observable. In most rural areas there is still an association between a marae (with attached hall of assembly) and one or more local hapu who have had traditional land interests in the vicinity. But in many cases land interests have become attenuated. Traditional principles of segmentation may still operate as, for example, when two or more marae may be constructed in one settlement, each representing the interest, pride, and power-seeking of different sections of the community. Each of these sections may, in fact, constitute a hapu, but each may comprise, too, members of other groups attached by marriage or by wider kin ties. In many rural settlements Maori people from other groups have come in to settle in search of employment, and control of the marae and of local Maori affairs generally may be exercised in practice by leaders not all of whom may be of local origin.

Special Organisations

One of the most important categories of modern Maori grouping for a wide variety of administrative and social purposes is the Komiti (an anglicised form of Committee). These organisations, very often having women as well as men members, allow of debate and airing of opinion which Maori democratic procedures find desirable before coming to a conclusion on public affairs. A Komiti is not always the swiftest and most efficient mechanism for arriving at decisions and getting them implemented, but although often slow moving, it suits Maori ways.

Despite the loss of precision in many aspects of traditional Maori social structure, there is still considerable interest in many quarters in genealogy and aspects of Maori history. To a significant degree this would seem to be a reaction to the threatened loss of Maori community values in the face of the various forces of modernisation impacting upon the people. This interest in genealogical and historical material has found expression in various forms of organisation of an essentially modern type. These range from small family committees entrusted with the preparation or care of genealogy books to a large and diffuse Maori association bearing a localised title with a president, secretary, and other officers. Some of these associations have public proceedings in which they set out some of the results of their investigations. Particularly of note in this field was the organisation set up to celebrate what was taken to be the six hundredth anniversary of the landing of the ancestral canoes. Following upon various specific celebrations on different canoe territories, the culmination of the series was held at the request of Princess Te Puea at Turangawaewae Pa, Ngaruawahia, in October 1950. For this, the Tainui celebration, a commemorative brochure (edited by the late Dr M. Winiata) was produced, with articles concerning the traditional canoe voyages and landfall in New Zealand, and the specific story of Tainui with appropriate genealogies. But, in accordance with the pattern set by the late Sir A. T. Ngata for these gatherings, the statement by Maori authorities of the oral traditions of the canoe was associated with an elaborate display of Maori dances and ceremonies, with some practical achievement in the form of concrete discussion on matters affecting Maori economic and social welfare. In this way there is still modern recognition of the canoe celebrations as symbols of Maori initiative and adaptability.

LEADERSHIP IN MODERN CONDITIONS

The Chiefs

The structure of leadership in the modern Maori community is very different from that which obtained in the traditional society. A reason for this has been the fact that, unlike the situation in many other territories over which Britain assumed sovereignty in the early years of the nineteenth century, the chiefs of the Maori were never formally integrated into the emerging administrative system. It was clearly recognised that the chiefs, especially the most noted ariki, had great authority, and in land transactions and political discussions great attention was paid to their opinions and to their power. But they were not brought formally into the structure of government – for example, there was no system of indirect rule through them as in some other parts of the British Empire. Hence they were left to find their own level in the new economic and political society which emerged. This absolved them from the danger of being regarded as spokesmen and tools of government at a time when newer leaders more representative of the people's opinion were arising in tacit or open opposition to them. The result was that the traditional chiefs have never been alienated from their own people, and a wide diversification of Maori leadership has occurred without much strain.

The Maori “King”

In some cases, notably that of the selection and support of the Maori King by the Tainui tribes, a chief of high rank in the traditional society has been selected as a modern leader. Even here, however, the first Maori King had rivals at least equal in rank; e.g., Te Heuheu of Ngati Tuwharetoa, and the King movement have tended to use the King as a symbol at a political and mystical level rather than as a practical leader in major economic and political affairs. The Maori King is an office and title unknown to the traditional society. But created on a European model a century ago in a situation of political strain, due in large measure to growing European pressure upon Maori land, the kingship in the person of Potatau Te Wherowhero and then of his son Tawhiao did serve to unite a large body of the Maori people at a critical time. Though its influence was considerable, its authority was never accepted by other major sectors. In the latter years of the nineteenth century attempts were made by some Maori leaders to secure the unification of all Maori tribes – the Kotahitanga movement – but the attempt failed owing in part to the refusal of some tribes to accept the leadership of a Waikato king. In recent years, however, as the memories of war and injustice have died down, and as the place of the Maori in modern New Zealand life is coming more closely under scrutiny, the role of the Maori King has assumed more social importance. His jurisdiction is not administrative. There are no organs of government in which he plays a major part, except those in his immediate neighbourhood. But the existence of the kingship and the person of the King are highly significant, as rallying points for Waikato sentiment. Representatives of other Maori groups, too, commonly attend from courtesy the most important celebrations at the King's residence. An old Maori proverb, “Waikato is the River, Taupiri the Mountain, Potatau the Man” is an expression of the symbolic association between territory, people, and leader which still epitomises much Maori thought and emotion. Taupiri, a noted landmark and burying place of ancestors, is still believed to signalise, with mist or with drenching rain, the funeral of a noted leader upon its slopes – the mountain mourns the tribal dead. Formerly standing for a conservative policy of traditional Maori behaviour, the King was not expected to take an interest in modern education and economic development. Now, however, his role is seen to be a much wider one of providing one important centre of leadership, and like other respected leaders elsewhere he has an influential voice on many issues of forward-looking major policy.

One of the most characteristic features of modern Maori leadership is that it rests primarily upon achieved rather than upon ascribed status. Nowadays it is personality and character or skill of a professional or administrative order which tend to give a person a significant role as a leader.

Leadership in war, which previously was a very significant element in Maori life, has almost completely lost its importance – not quite, because men who were prominent as officers or as performers of deeds of valour in the Second World War have received a great deal of respect and, being usually prominent in civil as well as military affairs, have their authority in ordinary life augmented by the record of their military prowess.

Basis of Leadership

In modern Maori society seniority by birth gives only a very limited right to the exercise of leadership. The mana ariki still exists in the respect given to someone who is of the appropriate descent. Mention is made in obituaries and other public notices of a man being a chief or rangatira of a tribe. But this respect operates at a formal ceremonial or ritual level and not ordinarily in the affairs of everyday life. In practical matters, involving major policy decisions on the use of resources or the resolution of political problems, modern Maori society has turned to those men who, for the most part, have been marked by superior education and have been successful in professional life – doctors, lawyers – or to men who have demonstrated their ability to handle problems in a broad, statesmanlike way. A special type of leadership in this connection is provided by priests and other people prominent in religious affairs. High birth, i.e., genealogical seniority, is an asset in such public affairs, but lack of it is no detriment. But leadership is exercised in many different contexts and at different levels. Naturally the professional man, churchman, and Government official tend to exercise most authority in the spheres most directly concerned with their own experience. At the level of village affairs leadership may be provided by people distinguished for their practicality, their strong views, their multiple local kin connections, and other characteristics. Here, skill in public speaking is very important. Most Maori decisions of significance to a community are taken only after there has been ventilation of the issue in public debate. In an assembly in the meeting hall or on the open marae many sides of the question are examined, and in the flow of argument the opinions of the gathering are formed. One who can present a case clearly, cogently, and forcibly is more likely to have his views adopted.

Some of the principles of traditional Maori society still operate, if only to a limited degree, in these gatherings. The convention that an elder should speak before a younger brother or cousin still operates generally, if only as an ideal. There is still the custom at some marae that no woman addresses a gathering. In 1956 the Maori Women's Welfare League, when torrential rains had flooded them out of their designated gathering place at Waitangi, broke with tradition when their conference took place in the great carved meeting hall named after Kupe, regarded as one of the first ancestors of the Maori to reach New Zealand. Since its opening in 1940, “Kupe” had never been used as a conference hall, and the breach with the tradition that no woman should stand and speak in a carved house caused much misgiving among the older men. On the other hand, some tribes claim that traditionally their womenfolk could always speak in public, and in modern conditions they very often do so.

Maori leadership in traditional society owed much to women, but their role tended to be a private rather than a public one. Nowadays, much committee work is in women's hands. Modern Maori society has seen the emergence of women as publicly recognised leaders. The great Te Puea Herangi, cousin of the Maori King, was for many years not only a power behind the throne, but also an ardent and efficient organiser in communal farm schemes, in settlement of a long-standing problem of Maori land confiscation by the Government, and in the establishment of the Maori political and cultural centre at Turanga-waewae. Presidents of the Maori Women's Welfare League have taken a prominent part in land-development schemes and in recreational and other welfare activities. Typical of one aspect of intercultural relations in New Zealand is the fact that one of them has also been president of a farmers' union and a rugby footballers' union, both having Pakeha (European) as well as Maori members.

A striking feature of the modern Maori situation is the important role played by younger people. This is partly because of the increasingly high level of education reached by many of them, and partly because of their conviction that they understand the problems and the workings of modern New Zealand society better than do many of their elders. Fired with this enthusiasm, many of them are keenly preoccupied with problems of Maori development and welfare. Young Maori Leaders Conferences, held in 1939 and in 1959, put much serious effort into grappling with questions of how some practical programme might be worked out to facilitate these ends.

In modern Maori leadership, however, despite the important role played by the professional men, Government officials, religious leaders, and by young people, considerable deference is still paid to the tribal elders. Kinship affiliations and seniority by descent combined with age are held in great respect, irrespective of the educational attainments of the persons concerned. The presence of the kaumatua graces a public gathering, their help is welcome in the reception of visitors and in carrying out the details of traditional ceremony, and their advice on other public matters is listened to with politeness, although nowadays it is by no means always followed. Even in the South Island, where traditional Maori forms have been much less adhered to than in the North, at a conference of one of the major tribal executives in 1956 the role of the elders was stressed. Although most of the discussion was conducted in English and the leaders were mainly younger sophisticated people, they made it clear that they acknowledged the authority of their elders and wished for their agreement. As one leader epitomised the matter in the assembly, “Our kaumatua must lead us, that is Maoritanga.”

Administrative Groups

The twentieth century has seen a marked growth in the assumption of Maori responsibility for organised stimulation and control of Maori social and economic affairs. During the nineteenth century, public administration of Maori affairs was primarily a matter for Government initiative and nomination of administrators by Government. In 1900, however, a system of Maori councils was established in order to give Maori communities some form of local self-government. For this purpose the community unit was taken to be the village; the jurisdiction of these councils was extremely limited; they had practically no finance, but they were of some effect in the improvement of housing, sanitation, and public behaviour. In 1945, as a result of the experience of organisation of Maori effort in aid of the war, the Maori councils were replaced by tribal committees, which have a less localised basis, broader policy interests, and some financial provision. Work done by such tribal committees includes the setting up of community centres; the organisation of sports facilities and youth clubs; assistance to the education of local young people; and the promotion of Maori arts and crafts. Some tribal committees have also energetically stimulated the provision of better housing.

The tribal committees are integrated on an elective representative basis into a structure of tribal executives, these in turn furnishing membership to district councils. Finally, at the national level, the district councils send representatives to a New Zealand Maori Council of Tribal Executives, the first provisional meeting of which took place in June 1961.

Special problems have been presented by the organisation of tribal committees in urban areas. In a New Zealand city the Maori people tend to be split into various groups depending upon their tribal affiliations and upon whether they are the descendants of local people or are immigrants. Kin relationship alone cannot be the basis for tribal committee organisation. The solution in the case of Auckland, for example, was for the Maori residents in different territorial divisions of the area to each form their own local tribal committee irrespective of their original tribal affiliation. Representatives from each tribal committee constitute the Waitemata Tribal Executive which operates for the whole of the Auckland City area.

Land Problems

At a different level of administration and concerned with different problems are the administrative units involved in handling Maori land. Structurally these have come to be of great significance in the twentieth century. The history of Maori land legislation and administration is a complex one. But on the whole the role of the Maori people themselves in these organs of administration has tended to grow over the years. The general principle behind these various structures is that, despite the growing differentiation of Maori society and urbanisation of the Maori people, the Maori still has a substantial economic interest and a very important social interest in land. For the most part, an interest in the local land by descent from earlier owners, even if it be of small proportion, is regarded as entitling a person to speak on the community marae. The distinction between local landholders and others with no local land rights, though disappearing in many respects, is still a valid one for much social action. The Government, though in the past often indifferent, has attempted both to secure and define Maori interests in land and to promote a more efficient utilisation of this basic asset. These two objectives have been sometimes difficult to reconcile. Individualisation and fragmentation of rights have led, as is well known, to much inefficient possession of land which the rightholder cannot work economically. Maori leaders have been much concerned with this problem and their initiative and pressure have been responsible for much of the more effective administrative action. From the many proposals and devices adopted to deal with this major problem have emerged certain types of administrative units which are of significance for the structure of modern Maori society. Of some lands, such as Maori reserves and Maori townships, the Maori Trustee is established as the legal owner, and the responsibility for the arrangements of leases, and the collection and distribution of the proceeds to the proper beneficiaries, is entrusted to him. With the assistance of representative committees, some of the income from these lands goes to the support of Maori education, community centres, or marae improvement. Provision is also made for the consolidation of interests, where possible. Maori Trust Boards administer for the benefit of the members of a particular tribe or set of tribes funds arising from payments made by the Crown for various purposes – usually damage deemed to have been suffered by the Maori people in question. For example, the Arawa District Trust Board of Rotorua receives on behalf of the tribes of the Arawa canoe, payment of £6,000 per annum in perpetuity, in compensation for the rights of these people to the beds of the lakes in the vicinity, the waters being used for fishing and other purposes by New Zealanders at large. These funds have been used for the improvement of water supplies and other health services, for advancing money for education, housing, and farming in the area.

Administrative units involving more direct cooperation on the part of the people concerned have been the incorporations by legal process of the owners of Maori land. Originally begun as family enterprises on the East Coast about the beginning of the century, for the last 50 years or more they have existed under legislative act as a means for the more efficient utilisation of communal land interest. Since these incorporations have been allowed to borrow from Maori funds and general State funds, their economic development has been greatly stimulated, so that nowadays some of them are large business entities employing much labour and handling large sums of money. Administered by committees of management, the shareholders in the corporate body are the shareholders in the rights of the land. Sometimes there have been difficulties in their administration, owing to inadequate accounting systems or clash of factional interests. But these incorporations represent one of the most imaginative and effective ways of meeting the problem of preserving personal Maori interests in ancestral land and at the same time making for a modern efficient utilisation of the resources.

Although the general structure of these incorporations follows a modern Western business model, the institutions still retain a distinctly Maori character. The shareholders in the incorporation are members of a family or larger kin unit, and their shares are their respective interests in the ancestral lands they have inherited. One sociological function of the incorporation is that it helps to keep united for corporate action members of this kin group. The overt functions of the incorporation are broad. The revenue from the lands administered by it is not simply dispersed in satisfying superficial individual wants; most of it goes into the satisfaction of definite welfare needs. Improvement of housing of the shareholders is one important function so served; education in the form of grants and special training is another. Some of the incorporations provide facilities for marae. All this is in addition to more directly economic provisions, such as technical improvements and stock replacement.

Religious Bodies

An important role in Maori social structure today is played by religious bodies . Of the traditional Maori religion hardly a vestige remains, except for some beliefs in mana and in tapu, some concepts about the nature of human personality, and some practices associated with the Maori tohunga, especially in treating sickness. But these threads of Maori religious belief are interwoven with those derived from Christian and other Western sources. Moreover, they operate in a relatively unorganised milieu. Structurally, it is the various churches which are significant, both in dividing broadly the Maori people into half-a-dozen or so major groups and in providing them with important aspects of their ideology. They also provide valuable avenues for the training of young people and many important welfare services. A few of the churches are specifically Maori in the sense that they owe their origin to Maori leaders and have their organisation controlled completely by Maori people, with no reference whatsoever to an external body. During the last century such Maori churches, e.g., the Ringatu, the faith of the Lifted Hand, have played a very important part in Maori life in various areas. Recently a prominent body, the Ratana Church, has endeavoured to cope with the problems of today at an economic and political, as well as at a religious, level. The other major churches which have substantial numbers of Maori adherents are either immediate offshoots from European and American churches or are closely associated with them. But however closely they may be integrated into a wider organisation, the Maori body of worshippers tends to constitute an entity with characteristics of its own. The Presbyterian Church in New Zealand, for instance, has a Maori Synod, which holds periodic gatherings in Maori meeting houses. The Maori Anglican church has its own leader, the Bishop of Aotearoa, and regular gatherings at various levels specifically provide for the interest of the Maori members. One such gathering in 1960, ostensibly at diocesan level, drew over 5,000 people, many from other denominations. The different churches increasingly manifest tendencies to cooperation. They are one very important frame for much Maori activity, and are likely to develop their individuality in terms which render them still more recognisably Maori focuses of sentiment.

Position of the Maori Today

In a general review of the position of the Maori people in New Zealand today, what is noteworthy above all is the manner in which they have preserved their individuality. Increasingly they have entered into modern New Zealand life at every level and in every aspect. But they have not simply been assimilated – there is indeed no simple word which can satisfactorily describe their total place in the society. Apart from very few who have aligned themselves completely with the Pakeha majority, the Maoris have retained a number of elements of their own culture, adapted and transmuted them, and fitted them into the general pattern of their living. Some of this adjustment has not been without strain and some of it is still imperfect. But it is recognised that there are positive values in “being a Maori”. So far from tending to reject more and more of their cultural heritage, the Maori people of today see that much of this heritage can be used by them in a constructive way, providing them with standards and patterns of behaviour which help to give a richer meaning to their life, and to give them an individuality as a community within the wider framework of the New Zealand society. Symptomatic of this general cultural attitude is the growing tendency of Maori people to think at the national rather than the tribal level. This tendency for individuals to conceive of themselves as representatives of more than tribal interest has been fostered in recent years by a wide range of factors, from increased education to the accelerated pace of migration into the towns, with a necessary diminution of local traditional loyalties.

by R.F.

• Some Modern Maoris, Beaglehole, Ernest and Pearl (1946)
• The Maori (2 vols.), Best, Elsdon (1924)
• Economics of the New Zealand Maori, Firth, R. (1959)
• The Maori People Today, Sutherland, I. L. G. (1940)
• The Effect of Technological Change on Four New Zealand Maori Communities, Ritchie, J. E. (Research Reports Nos. 1 and 2, Department of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, 1954, 1955)
• American Anthropologist, n.s. Vol. 46, Mem. No. 64, 1944, “The Maori: A Study in Acculturation”, Hawthorn, H. B.
• The Changing Maori, Keesing, F. M. (Memoir, Board of Maori Ethnological Research, Vol. 4, 1928)
• Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 65, pp. 212–31 (1956), “Leadership in Pre-European Maori Society”, Winiata, Maharaia
• Te Ao Hou: The New World, Department of Maori Affairs, 1952–to date.